A case against YouTubers for alleged obscenity in India’s Got Latent has sparked debate on digital content regulation. With the Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahbadia controversy gaining traction, public opinion is divided on obscenity. This raises questions about Indian obscenity laws and Broadcasting Network Standards (BNS) governing television and digital media.
NEW DELHI : A case has been filed against popular YouTubers for alleged obscenity in the show India’s Got Latent, with an FIR registered following complaints that the content was inappropriate and violated Indian laws on public decency. Authorities are investigating whether the show breached Section 292 of the IPC and provisions of the IT Act, which regulate obscene content in public and digital spaces.
This incident comes amid growing scrutiny of digital content, especially with the Ranveer Allahbadia controversy gaining traction. Public opinion remains divided on whether his statements qualify as “obscene,” highlighting the subjective nature of obscenity laws in India. Given the increasing legal responsibility of content creators, it becomes essential to understand what legally constitutes obscenity under Indian law and the role of Broadcasting Network Standards (BNS) in regulating television and digital media.
The Assam Police team is going from Mumbai to Pune. Samay Raina lives in Balewadi, Pune. They will serve notice at his home and ask him to appear in Guwahati in four days. However, yesterday, Samay Raina’s lawyer informed the Cyber Cell that Samay Raina is in America and will return on 17th March.
Legal Actions Against Ranveer Allahbadia
Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahbadia are facing legal action under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 for alleged obscene conduct and obscene statements in public and online.
- Section 296 of BNS (Obscene Acts in Public)
- Punishes obscene acts or songs in public with up to 3 months in jail, a Rs. 1,000 fine, or both.
- Section 67 of the IT Act (Obscene Material Online)
- Penalizes publishing/transmitting obscene content online.
- First conviction: Up to 3 years in jail & Rs. 5 lakh fine.
- Subsequent conviction: Up to 5 years in jail & Rs. 10 lakh fine.
- Section 67A of the IT Act (Sexually Explicit Content Online)
- Deals with publishing/transmitting sexually explicit content (non-bailable offense).
- First conviction: Up to 5 years in jail & Rs. 10 lakh fine.
- Subsequent conviction: Up to 7 years in jail & Rs. 10 lakh fine.
Multiple complaints and summons have been filed against Ranveer Allahbadia under these provisions.
“The Indian audiences have of course come of age from the times of two flowers cuddling each other symbolizing male and female union to more explicit manners of displaying such activity. Still, the acceptable norms of permissiveness in the society cannot be equated with declining moral values. What is patently obscene from an ordinary person’s point of view, would remain to be so for all times to come. There is always a thin line between what are acceptable limits of display of physical intimacy and obscenity.”
– Ekta Kapoor vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)
ALSO READ: Obscenity In ‘India’s Got Latent’ || FIR Registered Against Popular YouTubers
WHAT IS OBSCENITY ?
The term “obscene” originates from the Latin word obscenus, which translates to foul, repulsive, or detestable. In modern usage, the Oxford Dictionary defines “obscene” as something that is :
“offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency“
Obscenity, therefore, encompasses any content that is deemed offensive or morally degrading to individuals and society. It is often associated with material that can potentially corrupt or deprave the minds of its audience.
Tests to Determine Obscenity
The legal interpretation of obscenity has evolved over time through various judicial pronouncements. Some of the notable tests developed by courts include:
- The Hicklin Test (Regina v. Hicklin, 1868)
The earliest test for determining obscenity was laid down in the case of Regina v. Hicklin (1868). Justice Cockburn formulated the Hicklin Test, which states:
- A work is considered obscene if it has the tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.
- Even if a particular segment of society is susceptible to corruption due to the material, the work may be classified as obscene.
In simple terms, under this test, any publication that could degrade individuals prone to its influence could be considered obscene, irrespective of its overall merit or intent.
- Modifications to the Hicklin Test (Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, 1965)
The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965), introduced key modifications to the Hicklin Test, emphasizing a more balanced approach. The modifications included:
- Mere depiction of sex or nudity in art and literature cannot be considered obscene.
- The entire work must be evaluated holistically, taking into account both obscene and non-obscene portions.
- If a publication serves the greater public good, it may serve as a valid defense against obscenity charges.
These modifications made the test more nuanced, recognizing artistic freedom and the importance of context in evaluating obscenity.
- Contemporary Community Standards Test (Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 2014)
The Hicklin Test was eventually replaced by the Contemporary Community Standards Test in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014). This test considers:
- The prevailing moral and cultural standards of society at the time of evaluation.
- The sensitivities and tolerance levels of an average, rational person.
- The importance of context in determining whether material is truly obscene.
This approach aligns with evolving societal norms and acknowledges the subjectivity of moral standards across different time periods and communities.
- The Miller Test (Miller v. California, 1973 – USA)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Miller v. California (1973), established a three-pronged test for determining obscenity in the United States:
- The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the work appeals to prurient interests.
- The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law.
- The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
While not directly applicable in India, the Miller Test has influenced legal discussions around obscenity and the balance between free expression and public morality.
Legal Provisions Governing Obscenity in India
Several laws regulate and penalize obscene content in India, ensuring public decency and morality.
1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 296- Obscene Acts and Songs in Public Places : This section aims to ensure public spaces remain free of objectionable content and safeguard societal morality. It states:
- Any individual who performs an obscene act in a public place can face up to 3 months of imprisonment, a fine of up to Rs. 1,000, or both.
- Any individual who sings, recites, or utters an obscene song, ballad, or words in a public place can face the same punishment of up to 3 months in jail, a fine of up to Rs. 1,000, or both.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 292: Prohibits the sale, distribution, and publication of obscene books, pamphlets, and advertisements that appeal to prurient interests.
- Section 293: Imposes stricter penalties for selling or distributing obscene material to individuals under 20 years of age, with imprisonment extending up to seven years for repeat offenders.
- Section 294: Penalizes obscene acts, songs, and utterances in public places, with imprisonment extending up to three months, along with a fine.
3. Information Technology Act, 2000
- Section 67: Punishes the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form.
- Section 67A: Specifically deals with the publication or transmission of sexually explicit material in electronic form.
- Section 67B: Provides for stricter penalties in cases involving sexually explicit content featuring children.
4.The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986
This Act prohibits the indecent representation of women in advertisements, publications, writings, paintings, and other media. It defines “indecent representation” as the portrayal of a woman’s body in a manner that is derogatory, corrupting, or injurious to public morality.
5. The Cinematograph Act, 1952
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) regulates films to ensure they do not contain obscene or offensive content. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023 was introduced to modernize the Act and address contemporary challenges in media regulation.
Obscenity and Broadcasting Networks Standards (BNS)
Broadcasting Networks Standards (BNS) provide additional guidelines to regulate obscene and offensive content in television and digital media.
- Content Guidelines for Television and Digital Platforms
- Explicitly obscene material is strictly prohibited from being broadcasted on public television.
- Shows and films must comply with censorship guidelines to ensure that they do not depict sexually explicit or vulgar content that violates community standards.
- Advertising Standards
- Advertisements that contain sexually suggestive or explicit content are subject to strict scrutiny.
- Advertisers must ensure that content does not objectify individuals, particularly women, in a derogatory or obscene manner.
- Regulatory Mechanisms
- The Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) and self-regulatory bodies monitor and take action against violations.
- Digital content platforms must adhere to content classification rules, ensuring that age-appropriate guidelines are followed.
Freedom of Expression and Obscenity
The debate over obscenity often intersects with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
- Constitutional Perspective
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of public order, morality, and decency.
- Judicial Balancing of Free Speech and Morality
Courts have often been called upon to balance free speech with public morality. In Kamla Kant Singh vs. Bennett Coleman (1987), the Supreme Court held that while explicit content was present in a publication, it did not meet the threshold of obscenity as per contemporary community standards. The judgment reinforced the idea that material must be assessed in its entirety rather than in isolation.
Supreme Court’s View On obscenity in the Recent TVF Judgment
The TVF Judgment, delivered by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Apoorva Arora and Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. ,(2024) extensively examined the law and jurisprudence surrounding obscene material. It delineated the scope of offences under the IT Act and IPC while addressing the High Court’s erroneous approach in framing the inquiry, assessing the content’s obscenity, and applying an incorrect standard of review.
The case originated from an FIR against an episode of the web series College Romance, which contained expletives and profane language alleged to be obscene and sexually explicit.
The Delhi High Court upheld the FIR, citing concerns about its impact on impressionable minds. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that vulgar or expletive-filled language alone does not render content obscene.
The Court reiterated that the legal test for obscenity under Section 292 IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act hinges on whether the content is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, or corrupts the minds of those likely to access it.
The Court stressed the necessity of evaluating content in its entirety, considering its intent, narrative context, and potential influence on viewers rather than isolating specific words.
It ruled that while some may find such language improper or distasteful, it does not automatically equate to obscenity. This progressive judgment reinforces evolving social standards and the need to balance freedom of speech with reasonable restrictions.
READ JUDGEMENT:
The incident has triggered widespread outrage across the nation, with influential figures from the entertainment industry such as filmmaker Boney Kapoor and actor Rajpal Yadav speaking out against the inappropriate remarks.
Kapoor stressed the
“Importance of self-censorship and discipline, asserting that freedom of speech should not extend to socially unacceptable comments”
Yadav, on the other hand, expressed his embarrassment, highlighting
“The importance of respecting India’s cultural values”
In the wake of the backlash, Samay Raina has removed all episodes of “India’s Got Latent” from his YouTube channel, explaining that his sole intention was to entertain and bring joy. He assured that he would fully cooperate with the authorities in their investigation.
Ranveer Allahbadia also issued an apology video, acknowledging the inappropriateness of his comment, admitting a lapse in judgment, and emphasizing that he would never disrespect family.
Legally, if found guilty of the charges, the accused could face significant penalties, including imprisonment and fines. For example, under IPC Section 294, offenders can be sentenced to up to three months in prison, along with a fine, while Section 67 of the IT Act stipulates up to three years in prison and a fine of up to Rs. 5 lakh for first-time offenders.
This controversy has sparked a wider debate on the boundaries of content creation and the responsibility that influencers and comedians bear in upholding societal norms and cultural sensitivities. The incident serves as a reminder of the fine line between humor and respect, and the need for individuals in the public eye to be mindful of their impact.
READ MORE REPORTS ON OBSCENITY
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
