The Supreme Court of India recently witnessed a high-stakes legal battle involving YouTuber and influencer Ranveer Allahbadia, popularly known as “BeerBiceps,” who faced nationwide FIRs for allegedly making vulgar remarks on comedian Samay Raina’s YouTube show India’s Got Latent. Representing him in this contentious case is Abhinav Chandrachud, a senior advocate at the Bombay High Court and son of former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud. The case has drawn attention not only for its implications on free speech but also for spotlighting Chandrachud’s distinguished legal career, marked by academic excellence and a commitment to ethical practice.
Abhinav Chandrachud, 39, hails from a storied judicial lineage. His father, D.Y. Chandrachud, served as India’s 50th CJI until November 2024, and his grandfather, Y.V. Chandrachud, remains the longest-serving Chief Justice in Indian history. Despite this legacy, Abhinav and his brother, Chintan—also a lawyer—deliberately avoided arguing cases in the Supreme Court during their father’s tenure to uphold professional integrity. This decision, highlighted in D.Y. Chandrachud’s farewell speech, underscored their resolve to prioritize ethics over convenience.
Educationally, Chandrachud’s credentials are formidable. He graduated from Mumbai’s Government Law College in 2008 as a rank-holder and recipient of the Honourable Justice DP Madon Prize in Constitutional Law. He then pursued advanced degrees abroad, earning an LLM from Harvard Law School as a Dana Scholar and later a Master of Science in Law (JSM) and Doctor of Science in Law (JSD) from Stanford Law School, where he was recognized as a Franklin Family Scholar. His global exposure includes stints at international law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, enriching his expertise in comparative legal frameworks.
Chandrachud’s legal practice is complemented by scholarly contributions. He authored Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India (2017), analyzing India’s free speech jurisprudence, and Supreme Whispers (2018), a behind-the-scenes account of Supreme Court judges from 1980–1989. These works reflect his deep engagement with constitutional principles—a theme central to his defense of Allahbadia.
The India’s Got Latent case arose after Allahbadia participated in a segment where he posed a controversial question about parents and intimacy, sparking public outrage. Multiple FIRs were filed across states, including Assam, where co-accused Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh, and Apoorva Mukhija were also named. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma condemned the episode as “obscene,” leading to police summons for Allahbadia.
In the Supreme Court, Chandrachud argued for clubbing the FIRs, citing procedural abuse and threats to his client’s safety. He revealed that Allahbadia had received death threats, including a ₹5 lakh bounty for “cutting his tongue,” allegedly issued by former WWE wrestler Saurav Gurjar. Additionally, co-accused individuals faced acid attack threats, drawing parallels to the 2022 Nupur Sharma case. Chandrachud emphasized that a 10-second clip, extracted from a 45-minute adult-oriented show, had been misrepresented to incite public anger.
Despite expressing personal disgust at Allahbadia’s remarks, Chandrachud contended they did not necessarily constitute criminal offenses. “As an officer of the court, I am disgusted…but whether it rises to criminality is another question,” he asserted, urging the court to distinguish between moral disapproval and legal culpability. The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, granted interim protection from arrest but rebuked Allahbadia for his “dirty mind,” stating, “Just because you are popular, you cannot vomit such language”.
The court’s directives included restraining Allahbadia from airing new episodes, surrendering his passport, and cooperating with investigations in Maharashtra and Assam. It also issued notices on clubbing FIRs, observing that free speech “does not grant a license to defy societal norms”.
Notably, this case marked Chandrachud’s return to the Supreme Court after an 8.5-year hiatus, a deliberate pause during his father’s judgeship to avoid conflicts of interest. His reappearance underscores a career built on independence from familial prestige. Legal observers have lauded his nuanced arguments, blending constitutional safeguards with pragmatic concerns about online content regulation.
Ranveer Allahbadia, meanwhile, issued a public apology, calling his remarks “inappropriate and unfunny,” while Samay Raina removed all episodes of the show from YouTube. The controversy has reignited debates about comedy, censorship, and digital accountability, with parliamentarians demanding stricter social media laws.
For Abhinav Chandrachud, the case represents more than a legal defense—it is a testament to his philosophy of balancing personal ethics with professional rigor. As the judiciary grapples with evolving speech norms, his role highlights the delicate interplay between constitutional rights and societal values in India’s digital age.
