By Rahul Sangwan
Youtuber/Podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia aka “BeerBisceps” recently landed on the wrong side of the law when his objectionable remarks w.r.t “parents and sex” on the show ‘India’s Got Latent’ went viral and led to a massive online backlash. Various complaints were filed against him before the Mumbai Commissioner and the Maharashtra Women’s Commission. 3 states’ police have even registered FIRs against him, amongst other sections, under section 296 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and section 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act (‘IT Act’). Notably, Allahbadia has also approached the Supreme Court of India against lodging of all these FIRs against him wherein Supreme Court on 18.02.2025 granted him interim relief against arrest along with a lecture on “Morality and Indian values”.
Effectively, law agencies are attempting to penalize Allahbadia for making these “crass/vulgar statements” and using the profane/vulgar words in digital public space by terming them “obscene” under the above-mentioned sections of the penal statutes. While the public outrage and the debate over the morality over usage of profanity on digital platforms is not new, this recent controversy has again stirred the discourse over laws on obscenity and the test to determine ‘is morality or outrage enough to qualify as obscenity under Indian law?’.
Section 296 of BNS states that doing any obscene act or uttering any obscene words/songs in public place is a punishable offence whereas Section 67 of IT Act makes the publishing or transmitting of ‘obscene material’ in electronic form an offence. Section 67 A of the IT Act on the other hand, is as an aggravated form of offence under Section 67 which adds further specificity to the generic phrase ‘obscene material’ and penalises publication/transmission of any material which contains a “sexually explicit act”.
Interestingly, law doesn’t define ‘obscenity’ under the statute, it merely provides that for any material to be obscene it should be lascivious or appealing to the prurient interest. There being no clarity to what material is lascivious to the degree of being termed obscene, the same has been left to the Indian Courts to interpret basis the established “Community Standard Test” for determination of obscenity (as adopted by the Supreme Court of India in Aveek Sarkar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors, 2014). The Supreme Court while applying the Community Standard Test in Aveek Sarkar observed that only the materials having tendency to ‘excite lustful thoughts’ could be held to be obscene, but the obscenity need to be ascertained from the lens of an average person, by applying contemporary community standards.
The Application of Community Standard Test, in effect, is adoption of the harm-based approach i.e. what the community would tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that may flow from such exposure. Harm herein would mean that it is to such an extent that it makes someone to act in an anti-social manner, i.e., in a manner which society formally recognizes as incompatible with its proper functioning. [R. v. Butler (1992), Supreme Court of Canada]
In the above context, Allahbadia’s comments/word, even if, termed “highly vulgar” would not qualify for the ambit of ‘obscenity’ as per the interpretation given to it by the Indian Courts. Further, law and precedents in India have, time and again, made a clear distinction between vulgarity and obscenity. In Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra (1985), the Apex Court has observed that vulgar writing/words is not necessarily obscene, what may be vulgar may not be obscene. Vulgarity in itself, if it is not to the extent of being lascivious or appeal to prurient interest or obscene, punishable under Indian law. Also, inAshutosh Dubey v. Netflix (2020), the Delhi High Court has held, “It is a known fact that a stand-up comedian to highlight a particular point exaggerates the same to an extent that it becomes a satire and a comedy. People do not view the comments or jokes made by stand-up comedians as statements of truth but take them with a pinch of salt with the understanding that it is an exaggeration for the purposes of exposing certain ills or shortcomings”. Therefore, applying the Community Standard Test only when any act is found to be obscene and not just merely vulgar, the creator/speaker of the same can be punished. The exaggerated words and allegedly offensive statements might be considered sex-related or having sexual connotations which could generate a feeling of disgust and revulsion in some people but mere fact that the emphasis on “sex and parents” have been used in a vulgar way does not make the entire show and everyone in it obscene or mere vulgarity a penal offence.
Moreover, this has not been the first instance of outrage and the penal threats against the individuals for vulgar or profane language which has reached the Courts of law. In a very similar instance, in the case of “TVF Media Labs Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v State of NCT Delhi and Anr.” the Apex Court in 2024 set aside the order of the Delhi High Court and the Trial Court for registration of an FIR against the actors, directors, writers and producers of the show “College Romance” under section 292 of the IPC and 67 of IT Act for using crass/vulgar language on their show. The Apex Court while rejecting the rationale of public morality and threshold of decency adopted by the High Court has observed “vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity. While a person may find vulgar and expletive-filled language to be distasteful, unpalatable, uncivil, and improper, that by itself is not sufficient to be ‘obscene’. Obscenity relates to material that arouses sexual and lustful thoughts, which is not at all the effect of the abusive language or profanities that have been employed in the episode.”
“Obscenity” to scuttle the Freedom of Expression
Online freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution has become prevalent in the recent few decades after there have been an increase of internet and social media in the society. As a vehement and a potent tool of expression of free idea, Reality shows, Podcasts, Movies and TV series in recent times have been regarded as constituting a powerful medium of expression.
The construct of “Obscenity” and “Public Morality” has always been the factors for the law agencies to drag individuals through the legal regime by curtailing their ‘Freedom of Expression’ in order to promote the Politician’s idea of “Bhartiya Sanskriti”. Obscenity, as a concept, is subjective to the tolerance of respective individuals and changes depending on the host of factors like time and the context in which something is spoken or is portrayed, what might be obscene for some might not be for others. Hence, to consider the exercise of determination of anything being obscene, that too at the cost of stripping away the freedom of speech and expression for many, cannot be done through a narrow lens of certain individual’s understanding of Public Decency and Morality“…Afterall, it is nevertheless often true that one man ‘s vulgarity is another man ‘s lyric…”
Pertinently, when it comes to digital platforms, any creative space has to be seen through a broad and liberal mindset without making the freedom of expression subject to a skewed and narrow interpretations of the individual viewer’s ideas of indecency and obscenity. A creative work has to be read with a matured spirit, objective tolerance and with a sense of acceptability which is founded on reality and not with the obsessed idea of perversity that immediately connects one with the passion of didacticism or, for that matter, perception of puritanical attitude. A reader should have the sensibility to understand the situation and appreciate the character and not draw the conclusion that everything that is written is in bad taste and deliberately so done to pollute the young minds. [N. Radhakrishnan v. Union of India (2018)]
The case of Allahbadia, where public outrage is being used to threaten independent creators or comedians by penal actions, is not new. From the “AIB Roast” to Stand-up Comics like Vir Das and Munawar Faruqui, all have already been a target of the law machineries in the name of vulgarity, public sentiments, morality or by just simply being “anti-Indian Values”. Allahbadia has become just another in the line of many, wherein government is attempting to scuttle the freedom of expression of people by blowing out of proportion some “crass/vulgar statements” of an individual to further regulate OTT platforms, social media and independent digital space.
This frivolous attempt to penalize the use of profanity by Allahbadia in the name of obscenity to tackle the selective public outrage by law agencies, knowing very well that the said charges will not hold good in a Court of law, is nothing but a bleak attempt to appease the “people in power”. The very same people who allegedly hold the “baton of Indian values” helping build a narrative which lets the Government pass regulations on the conception of “Public Morality and Outrage”. Moreover, Supreme Court’s moral injunction and sermon on “societal values” while taking away the liberties of Allahbadia, even the fundamental right to practice his profession and carry on his business over something which won’t even hold up to the standard of criminality under penal laws only adds more fuel to the fire of the government’s already devised intentions of regulating ‘everything’ an individual can say in a digital space.
Afterall, law and courts have to be guided by the conception of constitutional morality and not by the outrage of the society or the perception of “Public morality”. If it were to do so, the criminal law machinery would be taking upon itself the preposterous task of punishing every creator, producer, journalist or any other person who would be talking anything in context of sex or using any kind of profane or vulgar words/slangs. In the test of determination of obscenity, the law have to maintain the delicate constitutional balance between the freedom of expression and restriction imposed on it. “Freedom of expression being one of the essential foundations of a society is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.”
