What has SC previously ruled on gag orders

Context : Ranveer Allahbadia Case Overview:

• SC granted interim protection from arrest (Feb 18) in FIRs related to alleged obscenity on his YouTube show India Got Latent.
  • Stringent conditions imposed:
    • Prohibited from posting on social media until further orders.
    • Directed to surrender passport.
  • These conditions contrast previous SC caution against undue restrictions while granting relief.

Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary ,Polity )

• Allahbadia’s Plea:
  • Filed under Article 32 for fundamental rights protection.
  • Sought consolidation of FIRs from Maharashtra, Assam, and Rajasthan to prevent harassment.
  • Precedent: In Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan (2022), SC criticized multiple FIRs for the same offence as harassment.
• Interim Relief Conditions:
  • No statutory guidelines; judges use discretion based on:
    • Flight Risk: Potential of absconding.
    • Intimidation of Witnesses: Possibility of threats.
    • Tampering with Evidence: Risk of interfering with investigation.
  • Usual conditions: passport surrender, high bail bonds, mandatory police appearances.
  • SC cautions against disproportionate restrictions:
    • Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022): Conditions “impossible of compliance” defeat bail’s purpose.
    • Frank Vitus v. NCB (2024): Google Maps PIN sharing deemed unconstitutional; violates Article 21 privacy rights.
• Gag Orders & SC’s Prior Rulings:
  • Allahbadia’s content ban is a prior restraint—restricting speech before it occurs.
  • SC’s free speech stance:
    • Rehana Fathima Case (2021): Kerala HC’s social media ban stayed.
    • Mohammed Zubair Case (2021): Request to restrict tweets rejected; gag orders create a “chilling effect” on speech and hinder profession.
  • Principle: Prior restraints permissible only in exceptional cases to balance freedom of speech and justice.