Ranveer Allahbadia, widely known as the founder of the YouTube channel ‘Beer Biceps,’ has recently come under scrutiny following allegations of making obscene comments during his appearance on the YouTube show ‘India’s Got Latent.’ The controversy has sparked a legal probe by Mumbai police, while Assam police have already filed a complaint under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), targeting both Allahbadia and the show’s host, comedian Samay Raina, for alleged “obscene acts.” Although no FIR has been registered in Mumbai yet, this incident raises important questions about how obscenity is defined under Indian law, particularly in the context of online content.
What Constitutes Obscenity Under Indian Law?
Obscenity laws in India are primarily governed by Section 294 of the BNS, which penalizes individuals who sell, import, export, advertise, or profit from obscene material, including books, paintings, and electronic content. The law defines obscene material as that which is “lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest” or that which “tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read, see, or hear it.” First-time offenders can face up to two years in prison and a fine of up to Rs. 5,000.
In addition, the Information Technology Act, of 2000, under Section 67, specifically addresses the publishing or transmission of obscene material online. This law mirrors the definition provided in Section 294 of the BNS but imposes stricter penalties, including up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs. 5 lakh for first-time offenders.
The Evolution of Obscenity Laws in India
The legal framework surrounding obscenity in India has evolved, influenced by both domestic and international cases. One of the earliest and most significant rulings involved D.H. Lawrence’s controversial novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover. In 1964, the Supreme Court of India deemed the book obscene under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, borrowing from the British case Queen v. Hicklin (1868). The “Hicklin test” assessed whether a work had the potential to “deprave and corrupt” individuals susceptible to immoral influences, often judged from the perspective of the most impressionable members of society.
However, societal standards and legal interpretations have shifted over time. The UK’s Obscene Publications Act of 1959 required that a work be considered “as a whole” rather than judged by isolated passages. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roth v. United States (1957) introduced the “community standards” test, evaluating whether material appealed to the prurient interest of the average person.
India eventually adopted a more nuanced approach. In the 2014 case Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court embraced the “community standards” test, acknowledging evolving societal norms and the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of potentially obscene material.
Obscenity in the Digital Age: Recent Judicial Perspectives
The rise of digital platforms has further complicated the legal landscape surrounding obscenity. A notable example is the Supreme Court’s March 2024 ruling on the YouTube web series College Romance. The creators faced charges under Section 292 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act for using vulgar language and depicting sexual content. However, the court quashed the proceedings, distinguishing between obscenity and foul language.
Justices A S Bopanna and P S Narasimha clarified that “obscenity relates to material that arouses sexual and lustful thoughts,” which was not the case with the language used in the series. Applying the community standards test, the court emphasized that while certain words might be sexual, their common usage often reflects emotions like anger, frustration, or excitement, rather than an intent to arouse lustful thoughts.
Do We Need Stricter Online Regulations?
The Ranveer Allahbadia controversy highlights the challenges of regulating online content in an era where boundaries between free expression and obscenity are increasingly blurred. While existing laws provide a framework for addressing obscene material, their application must evolve alongside changing societal norms and digital communication trends.
As digital platforms continue to grow, the question remains: Should India implement stricter online regulations to curb obscenity, or should the focus be on refining existing laws to better distinguish between offensive language and truly obscene content? The answer may lie in a balanced approach that protects free expression while safeguarding public decency in an ever-evolving digital landscape.