A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case addresses whether the use of expletives and vulgar language in a web series, titled College Romance (Season 1, Episode 5), constitutes an offense under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning the publication of obscene material. The High Court dismissed a petition for quashing FIRs filed against the creators and actors of the web series, applying the community standards test to classify the content as obscene. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that vulgar language or profanities are not inherently obscene under the legal framework. The ruling clarified that obscenity under Sections 67 and 292 requires content to be lascivious, appealing to prurient interest, or corruptive to reasonable audiences, which was not established here.

Keywords: Obscenity, Community Standards Test, Profanity, IT Act Section 67, FIR Quashing.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1694-1695 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date: 19 March 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: A.S. Bopanna, J., and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
vi) Author: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
vii) Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1147; 2024 INSC 223
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 67 and 67A, IT Act, 2000, Section 292, IPC, Section 482, CrPC
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: The judgment quashed the High Court’s ruling directing FIR registration.
x) Case is Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Cyber Law, Freedom of Speech, Media Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
This case arose from an FIR filed against the creators and actors of College Romance over alleged obscene language in a web series episode. The complainant argued that the language violated Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act and Section 292 IPC, demanding regulation of the digital platform. Initially, the High Court upheld the FIR’s validity, applying the community standards test. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the language and content constituted obscenity as legally defined.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The web series episode, titled Happily F**d Up, used expletives and profanities, forming the core of the FIR.
2. The complaint alleged that the language was sexually explicit and corruptive under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act and Section 292 of IPC.
3. Despite an investigative report finding no obscenity, the ACMM directed FIR registration.
4. The High Court dismissed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, leading to the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether vulgar and profane language constitutes obscene content under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act.
ii. Whether the application of the community standards test was valid and legally tenable.
iii. Whether the High Court erred in interpreting obscenity in digital content.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The petitioners contended that profanities, while vulgar, lack the essential elements of lasciviousness or prurience to be classified as obscene.
ii. They emphasized the absence of any sexually explicit content under Section 67A of the IT Act, noting the literal meaning of profanities is irrelevant in this context.
iii. The defense relied on precedent, including Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014), to argue that obscenity must be gauged by the community standards test.
iv. It was asserted that digital media consumption provides user choice, warranting a higher tolerance threshold for content compared to traditional broadcast platforms.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The complainant argued that the language violated moral sensibilities and was accessible to impressionable minds, including children, via an unregulated platform.
ii. The respondents asserted that the use of vulgar language lacked artistic, literary, or social value, classifying it as obscene under Section 292 IPC.
iii. The High Court’s application of the community standards test was upheld, considering Indian societal norms and morality.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that vulgarity is not tantamount to obscenity. The profanities, though crude, did not appeal to prurient interests or corrupt minds in reasonable audiences.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasized the need for nuanced contextual assessment of artistic works, especially on digital platforms with user discretion.

c. Guidelines

1. The community standards test must evaluate material in its entirety, not in isolated segments.
2. Profane language, without sexual connotation or impact, does not constitute obscenity.
3. Content regulation should balance free speech and public morality, focusing on intended audience and context.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, underscoring the evolving judicial standards for digital content. The verdict reinforces freedom of expression, emphasizing contextual and community-driven evaluations of obscenity in media law.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014)
ii. Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra (1985)
iii. Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996)

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Sections 67 and 67A, IT Act, 2000
ii. Section 292, IPC
iii. Section 482, CrPC