He Has Taken Court For A Ride: Supreme Court Imposes ₹3 Lakhs Costs On Comedian Samay Raina For Violation Of Judicial Undertaking

The Supreme Court took a stern view of the blatant non-compliance with the judicial order and misrepresentation committed by comedian Samay Raina.

The Court was hearing a matter concerning the broadcast ban previously imposed on Ranveer Allahbadia following the registration of FIRs over offensive comments made on Raina’s show, India’s Got Latent.

Although the apex court had previously vacated the interim injunction based on a solemn undertaking that the petitioners would produce specialized content to generate public awareness for persons with disabilities, the Bench observed that the orders were brazenly violated.

Noting that the misconduct was heavily compounded by false claims regarding a compliance affidavit, the Court imposed exemplary costs upon the petitioners, directing them to deposit the amount within a strict timeline of two weeks.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties briefly, this Court finds no reason to doubt that one of the respondents, namely Samay Raina, has not only taken the judicial process for a ride but is also in brazen violation of the statements and undertakings solemnly made before this Court. This misconduct is further compounded by the making of a false statement asserting that an affidavit of compliance was successfully filed yesterday, whereas no such affidavit exists on the judicial record. Consequently, we hereby impose exemplary costs of ₹3 lakhs upon the said respondent, to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within two weeks. A further period of 15 days thereafter is granted to file a proper compliance affidavit. It is made distinctively clear that if the costs are not deposited within the stipulated timeframe, consequential punitive action shall be initiated against the person in default."

Solicitor General Tushar Singh and Advocate Aparajita Singh appeared for the Respondents.

During the course of the proceedings, Advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing for the Respondents, submitted that the petitioners’ subsequent conduct proved highly objectionable. She argued that rather than fulfilling the solemn undertaking made to the court, the petitioners merely summoned individuals with disabilities to physical venues to shoot commercial shows.

She further expressed grave concern over the contemporary state of public discourse, noting that figures like Samay Raina were being projected as youth icons, a sentiment she described as deeply alarming.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the Union, strongly concurred with the respondent's submissions, remarking that the youth of the nation possessed far better role models than the individuals in question.

The Court expressed severe displeasure with the petitioners' conduct. The Court observed that it found no reason to believe Samay Raina had not taken the judicial process for a ride, noting that the orders of the court were brazenly violated. The Bench further emphasized that the misconduct was heavily compounded by the fact that the petitioners claimed an affidavit of compliance had been filed, whereas no such document existed on the judicial record.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta drew the Bench's attention to the show's opening sequence, noting that host Samay Raina had hung a "Nimbu-Mirchi" totem on stage to ward off "bad vibes" and avoid cancellation.

The Solicitor General argued that this act clearly demonstrated the host's underlying intentions and targets. In response, the Chief Justice of India warned that if individuals failed to mend their ways or respect societal sentiments, they would face the legal consequences.

The proceedings intensified when the petitioners' counsel submitted that ₹9 lakhs had been raised through the awareness shows.

Advocate Aparajita Singh, representing the respondents, swiftly rejected the overture, stating her clients wanted no money from them. Justice Bagchi censured the petitioners, remarking that they should have invited the respondents to the show instead of offering a monetary figure, which gave the impression that they were attempting to buy their way out. He observed that the petitioners had exploited individuals with disabilities to protect their own commercial speech.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked, "You see everything from the commercial lens. Exactly. Right. So you have forgotten that after all your shows deal with sentiments, your shows deal with humor, right? And humor is perhaps the most core and the special value that every individual had to a right to happiness. And that is what you have lost because of your persuasion of right to material well. Your welcome. We welcome that. In, nothing against them. And you're right to commercial speech. Before this court, you give this impression that these persons have been hurt. Inadvertently, we will bring them on our show and we will also try to assuage their feelings in public. And that is exactly what the very idea of truth and reconciliation is all about."

Advocate Aparajita Singh strongly criticized the petitioners' arrogance and refusal to back down.

Advocate Aparajita Singh said, "This arrogance that I am not going to bow down."

Counsel representing Raina said, "The specially abled people were called and photos are there. But if Ms Singh's client was not reached out then it is unfortunate. We will prevail over our client and have it done."

To which, Chief Justice Kant said, "We have been granting liberty for so long. We thought you are youngsters from a respectable family and work on it..but nothing is happening."

Singh said, "This is just ego and arrogance."

Consequent upon these findings, the Supreme Court took an adverse view of the blatant non-compliance and misrepresentation.

The Court accordingly imposed exemplary costs of ₹3 lakhs upon the petitioners, directing the said amount to be deposited within a strict timeline of two weeks.

Cause Title: Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia v. Union of India [W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025]