Right to be Stupid

[Disclaimer: This article is an opinionated satirical rant meant to simply act as a critique. Any resemblance to actual persons is purely intentional because, well, they said what they said. The article critiques ideas, not individuals or their personalities, still if someone wants to wear the shoe I can't prohibit them.]

Although there can be a handful of interpretations of the word 'stupidity,' the one that perfectly fits this article is provided by the Oxford Learner's Dictionary as "behaviour that shows a lack of thought or good judgement."

I firmly believe that everyone has the inherent right to be stupid. While stupidity shouldn't be encouraged or celebrated, it should be protected. And defending the right to be stupid isn't the same as defending stupidity itself. Be it Ranveer Allahbadia, who, despite not being a comedian, attempted to one-up the humour of professional comedians on a panel, only to deliver a crass and awkward "Would you rather" scenario, or two G for Gentlemen in their 60s sitting in esteemed positions, critically judging him through a flawed belief that all content should be wholesome and family-friendly—both are exercising their right to be stupid. And that's okay.

Popular podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia was on the judges' panel of a YouTube comedy-roast-talent show— India's Got Latent, hosted by comedian Samay Raina. Allahbadia while intending to be humorous, posed an unfunny and tasteless "Would you rather" question to a contestant:

"Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life or join in once to make it stop forever?"

The entire internet went into uproar. FIRs and complaints were filed against all judges of the episode, even against those from previous episodes. The Mumbai police, with nothing better to do, even went to the shoot location, probably in search of some hidden jokes. Hate peddlers on TV news, politicians and the self-appointed moral police suddenly found this issue more disgraceful than their own activities, and for an entire week, this nonsense dominated the headlines.

Ranveer approached the Supreme Court, seeking relief from arrest and protection from further FIRs. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh granted him relief but not without Justice Kant lashing him, calling his comments "disgusting," "filthy," and "insulting." They even barred him from publishing new content on social media.

On March 3, 2025, Ranveer prayed for relief from this restriction, arguing that his podcast is his source of livelihood and that his 280 employees depend on it. The court again granted his plea but not without Justice Kant once again ranting about morality.

Justice Kant, while peddling his gyaan, stated,

"Humour is something where the entire family can enjoy… nobody feels embarrassed… using all filthy language is not a talent… we have excellent comedians in Bollywood… see their expression, see their dialogues, see their words… that's the element of creativity, it's an art."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also jumped in, saying he watched the show "out of curiosity" and concluded,

"Forget a man and a woman cannot see this show together… I and AG cannot see this show together, your lordships cannot sit together and see this show."

He further says,

"My logic is simple, if you cannot make me laugh without being vulgar, you are not a good comedian."

I have a simple question for these learned G for Gentlemen: Do they have the same intimate conversations with their parents as they do with their partners? Do they invite their parents into their personal space if and when they're engaged in their private activities? I don't think there's a yes coming from them to either of these questions. Then why the hell do they think everything should be suitable for "family viewing"?

By their logic, all A-rated movies should be banned. Forget that, even basic love scenes, bloodshed, or even biology textbooks (if by mistake schools teach human reproduction) should be abolished as all of them have the supposed capability of making people uncomfortable and corrupting their minds. If the champions of morality truly believe in their own stupidity, they should vouch for abandoning all these things.

Whose morality decides what content is acceptable? There's nothing called universal morality, it's subjective. In one place, even abusing and mocking Ram is considered a right, while elsewhere, it's blasphemous. Those who participated in the show, as well as the paying YouTube members, had no issue with the remarks, while those who outraged the most were never the intended audience. Ranveer and others have every right to make even more distasteful comments, as long as their audience consents to it, which they did.

The reality is simple: Everyone should have the freedom to watch what they desire, and everyone should have the freedom to create the content they want without paying any heed to somebody else's morality. The show in question was explicitly suitable for an 18+ audience. If you're one and you don't like it, don't watch it. But don't dictate what other adults should consume or produce.

These G for Gentlemen are fully entitled to their personal opinions and tastes, and I have no problem with that. But when such personal preferences start interfering with your legal mind and conduct in court, I, as a rightful and dutiful citizen of this country, have every right to call it out. So it's better you keep your personal preferences out of the courtroom or be ready to face sharp criticism.

Tushar Mehta then brought up,

"We cannot prohibit a child to have access to something which is merely mentioned 18+ because now everything is in an open domain."

So instead of advocating for better parental controls or identity verification, his solution is to regulate the content itself? Genius. If a child uses his parents' account or fakes his age while signing in to his account to watch some adult content, how the hell is that the fault of the platform or the content creators? Why is the burden on content creators instead of parents?

Justice Kant cried on another joke. He brought up Samay Raina's comedy tour in Canada, where Samay made a pun on the controversy, joking with his audience, "Thanks for paying my lawyer's fees."

Tushar Mehta interjected,

"He was making a fun sarcastic remark… He went abroad and made fun of the proceedings."

This was enough to offend their fragile ego. Why? Because a comedian made a sarcastic remark? Is the court so sensitive that a simple joke like this threatens their prestige? If they are outraged even at such harmless jokes then they better stay away from judging comedy altogether.

No wonder the courts use contempt every now and then as a convenient weapon in the name of preserving their "dignity."

This entire fiasco isn't about whether Ranveer Allahbadia's joke was bad—it was. But bad jokes aren't illegal. The court's moral policing and the state's obsession with controlling content (even though they present as if they simply want an equilibrium of expression and decency) set a dangerous precedent for free speech.

The right to be stupid, to crack a joke, to offend and even to be offended are fundamental. And if G for Gentlemen don't realise the first three, and are still adamant about imposing their moral sensibilities on others, it's high time they put a good thought into it and don't look stupid.

And before I end, I wish to address some sweet words by Justice Kant. On Samay Raina's remark, he said,

"They don't know the jurisdiction which this court enjoys and what probably can be. We don't want to because they are young and we understand… that if they behave like responsible people otherwise we know how to deal with them."

And for good, he added,

"There are some people who are writing articles on free speech etc… we know how to handle them also."

Mahoday, I don't think there's any need to expressly state how you may "deal with them" or "handle them," given your power and your fragile dignity. But here's a reminder— "Everyone has the right to be stupid." And so do I.

So if any idea of a contempt or defamation suit crosses the mind of the two G for Gentlemen, just consider this the rant of a stupid person on the internet, similar to the one you delivered in court. Not that I consider myself important enough for you to take notice, but if by chance you do go that path, you'd only be proving my point.

—Siddhant Sharma

A Note by Hritam Saha

My good friend Sharma has commented on a dialogue between a judge and an advocate. Neither the judge nor the advocate presented any written judgment or written submission, capturing their views on the subject. Therefore, their comments made during the oral discourse, which have disclosed their views, can only be debated upon.

The judge has passed an order protecting the liberty of the person concerned and has also allowed him to do podcasts which was prohibited earlier. However, the dialogue between the judge and the advocate will operate as a hesitation for any layperson to do a podcast with the person concerned.

My friend Sharma has questioned the jurisdictional expertise of both a judge and an advocate in commenting on the moral compass of comedy—both in general and in reference to this specific incident. My friend did not touch upon the integrity of the court and the professional ethics of the advocate. Quite innocently, however, he appears to be apprehensive about being held guilty of contempt of court or defamation. The obvious question is whether my friend is important enough to attract the notice of the judge and advocate. I don't think so, hence such an apprehension is an illusion. That, however, is beside the point. I want to put it on record that if a judge and an advocate have the discretion to initiate and lead a dialogue on the morality of a subject arising from a case before them, the public equally has a right to comment on the merits of that moral dialogue.

Comedy has its shades. The public is free to choose their preferred crayons. However, if a particular crayon is prohibited, the public loses its right to use it. If a judge and an advocate have their own choice of crayons and want only that crayon to be used for drawing shades, the public equally gets a right not to use that crayon unless mandated by law. My friend Sharma has not questioned the comedic preferences of the judge and advocate. Rather, he asks whether the judge and advocate can impose the use of a crayon on us.

I agree with the comments, made above by Mr Sharma.

—Hritam Saha