The Supreme Court of India has granted protection from arrest to Podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia after his insidious remarks on the India Got Latent show. The court has further instructed him to surrender his passport to the Thane police station, join the investigation and do no shows until further notice.
During arguments, there was a heated exchange where Justice Suryakant expressed disgust at the remarks by Ranveer Allahbadia. Ranveer’s lawyer, Abhinav Chandrachud, listed the threats that were being given to Ranveer and his co-accused. In one of his arguments, he said, “One of the co-accused has been threatened with acid attack. In Nupur’s case, there were threats and the remarks were worse. The moment there is 2nd FIR, it constitutes an abuse of process”.
Chandrachud cites legal precedents
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 18, 2025
Chandrachud: One of the co-accused has been threatened with acid attack. In Nupur's case, there were threats and the remarks were worse. The moment there is 2nd FIR, it constitutes abuse of process#SupremeCourt @BeerBicepsGuy
LiveLaw and Bar and Bench both reported the remark by Chandrachud.
Dr Chandrachud: one of the court accused are threatened with acid attacks. In nupur case statement was worse.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) February 18, 2025
Justice Kant: that is okay. Threats are there everyday. State can take any action.
With this remark, Abhinav Chandrachud seems to have continued the saga of the vilification of Nupur Sharma. In fact, Chandrachud did so in front of the very judge who had made insidious remarks against Nupur when she approached the Supreme Court for the clubbing of FIRs.
In July 2022, when Nupur Sharma had approached the Supreme Court for clubbing of the multiple FIRs filed against her, it was a bench of Justice Suryakant and Pardiwala which had made shockingly insensitive and insidious comments against Nupur Sharma. In that hearing, frankly, one cannot really decide which judge lowered the majesty of the court more – Justice Suryakant or Justice Pardiwala. The comments ranged from calling her a woman with a loose tongue to blaming her for the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal by Jihadis. The judges went as far as to say that Nupur Sharma had set the country on fire with her remarks – Nupur Sharma – not the petulant, violent and pampered minority which took to the streets chanting Sar Tan Se Juda – demanding the beheading of Nupur Sharma because she dared to repeat what is mentioned in the Islamic scriptures.
Abhinav Chandrachud, arguing for his client Ranveer Allahbadia said in court that, “In Nupur’s case, there were threats and the remarks were worse”. Now, before we comment on this statement, it is important we analyse what this statement means.
Legally, Abhinav Chandrachud means that if the FIRs can be clubbed for Nupur Sharma by the Supreme Court, given that she was getting death threats, then the situation should be much different for Ranveer Allahbadia. To make that point and for the benefit of his client, Chandrachud drew a parallel claiming that the comment by Nupur Sharma was far more egregious than the comments made by Ranveer.
One has to give it to junior Chandrachud – it was indeed a good legal strategy to make this statement, especially in this case. First and foremost, what Chandrachud did was show a “more egregious” statement compared to what Ranveer said, hoping to impress upon the judges that FIRs have been clubbed for “much worse” and therefore, Ranveer’s case should be considered. The second thing he did was invoke the memory of Nupur Sharma in front of the very judge who had made insidious remarks against her – in the probable hope that his disgust for Nupur Sharma was much more severe than his disgust for Ranveer.
Smart? Sure. Correct? Nope. Moral and just? Certainly not.
Let’s tackle the questions one by one.
Were Nupur Sharma’s comments worse than Ranveer Allahbadia’s?
The short answer is – No. But here is the long answer. What Nupur Sharma said (redacted because the author likes her head attached to her torso) was, firstly, a response to a Muslim panellist, Tasleem Rehmani, insulting Lord Shiva after a Shivling was found in the Gyanvapi disputed structure. Like many other Muslims, Rehmani too insulted the Shivling with expletives and it was only in response that Nupur Sharma quoted facts from the Islamic scriptures, asking him how he would feel if she were to repeat those facts.
Second, and most importantly, Nupur Sharma did not throw expletives or insult Rehmani – nor did she insult his faith, unlike what Rehmani said. All she did was, quite literally, repeat what the Islamic scriptures say.
Now, I really don’t want to repeat what Nupur Sharma said because I don’t want to further offend the perennially offended, petulant and violent barbarians who have made Nupur Sharma’s life miserable. But I will do one better – I will let the venerated terrorist Zakir Naik – who is considered one of the world’s foremost Islamic scholars – tell you what Nupur Sharma said.
Zakir Naik made this speech while he was in Dubai – supposedly an Islamic nation – and was not beheaded for it. Nupur Sharma, on the other hand, repeated exactly the same thing – and has been receiving death, beheading and rape threats from across the world for the past 3 years – with no respite.
While Nupur Sharma merely repeated what Zakir Naik himself had said, and something said by various Islamic scholars from across the world, Ranveer Allahbadia made a dumb, crass and sexual “joke” about parents – completely unprovoked.
While Nupur Sharma responded to religious insults being hurled by Tasleem Rehmani, Ranveer Allahbadia went online, sought this joke out from a German show, wrote it down, memorised it (I assume, since he wasn’t reading it off a paper), and asked a seemingly young person if they would watch their parents have sex for the rest of their lives or join them once to stop it.
Simply on the point of law, Nupur Sharma’s statement was not “worse” since a) it was factual and b) it was a response to insults, while Ranveer’s dumb joke was a thought-out, predecided and premeditated statement.
On the basis of facts – and I cannot say this enough – Nupur Sharma’s statement was FACTUAL. That Muslims took offence to it is a Muslim problem, not a Nupur Sharma problem. As I have said before – If the truth is Islamophobic then the problem doesn’t lie with the truth, it lies with Islam. In the case of Ranveer, I would imagine that a question about watching one’s parents fornicate would offend sane, thinking, civilised people. In fact, if someone does not take offence to a dumb podcaster talking about their parents fornicating, perhaps their moral compass is broken and they need medical help. Therefore, comparing the two cases may be a great legal strategy, but it is unconscionable on a moral plane especially when Nupur Sharma has been confined to her home, under strict protection, for 3 years with no end in sight because the crazed barbarians would never stop hunting her, just like they did not stop hunting Salman Rushdie.
If one were to say that the statements by Salman Rushdie were “worse” than the comments of Ranveer Allahbadia, it would draw sharper reactions in favour of Rushdie. But since the subject here is Nupur Sharma, Chandrachud felt comfortable vilifying her in front of the very judge who had essentially said she deserved the threats being given to her by crazy Muslims.
In short, the factual statements by Nupur Sharma cannot be compared to the deranged “joke” by a 31-year-old podcaster who thought displaying his secret Odiepus complex may invite a few laughs.
Who is the blame – Justice Suryakant or Abhinav Chandrachud?
One can be angry at Abhinav Chandrachud for bringing up Nupur Sharma, but frankly, Chandrachud was doing what was right for his client. The question is, why did he think it was acceptable to vilify Nupur Sharma in the highest court of the country merely for stating facts? Why did Chandrachud think it was ok to tarnish the reputation of a victim – yes – a victim of Islamic fanaticism and barbarism? Why did Chandrachud think that insulting Nupur Sharma would help his case?
Abhinav Chandrachud thought it was ok to stoop that low because the very judge who stooped lower was the one who held Ranveer Allahbadia’s fate in his hands.
It was Justice Suryakant who was one of the judges that made vicious comments against the very victim they were meant to protect. It was this very Supreme Court which incentivised the vilification of Nupur Sharma that Abhinav Chandrachud indulged in today.
It would be easy to simply blame Chandrachud and ask if this was the best argument he could make in the court of law to protect Ranveer Allahbadia. It would be easy to ask how he could indulge in such shenanigans after coming from a long, illustrious line of judges.
But frankly, he is only following the precedent set by this very Supreme Court and this very judge.
The statements by Justice Suryakant and Justice Pardiwala in 2022 ensured that Nupur Sharma could be thrown to the wolves with impunity because that is exactly what they did.
What the Supreme Court did years ago, will continue to haunt Nupur Sharma – because when they were meant to protect her, they blamed her for the actions of Jihadi, blood-thirsty murderers. That is the undeniable, unshakable truth – untarnished by the irate rants of the Judges and the screeching, murderous and bellicose rants by the barbarian mobs.
Do I think Ranveer Allahbadia should be jailed? No. Do I think the outrage is justified? Sure. Do I think he should be threatened? Absolutely not. Do I think the case of Nupur Sharma and Ranveer are the same? Absolutely, utterly, NOT.
