The Supreme Court delivered a scathing rebuke to Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina over their comments. The court’s language appears moralistic rather than legalistic, venturing into vague and personal condemnation rather than a clear, principle-based adjudication. This again creates a dangerous precedent wherein judicial rulings are based on subjective moral standards rather than constitutional principles of free speech, due process, and proportionality. But what Hobbes underestimated was that excessive control, too, can be a form of anarchy—an unchecked state power that disregards the due process of due process in the name of stability. The Supreme Court should have focused on clear legal principles such as the boundaries of obscenity, harm, and harm, rather than subjective morality, writes Ravi Agamben. He argues that sovereign power thrives in moments of crisis using ambiguity as a pretext to expand its reach. The absence of law does not create a vacuum; rather, it creates an overreaction, an impulse to discipline before an offence is even defined.