The controversy surrounding Ranveer Allahbadia’s comments on the YouTube show ‘India’s Got Latent’ has once again put the spotlight on India’s obscenity laws. With digital content creators increasingly facing legal scrutiny, it is worth asking: What constitutes obscenity, and where should the line be drawn?
Under Indian law, content is considered obscene if it is “lascivious” or “appeals to the prurient interest”. The punishment varies under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology (IT) Act. Under Section 294 of the BNS, selling, importing, exporting, advertising, or displaying obscene material, including electronic content, can lead to imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of ₹5,000 for first-time offenders. However, under Section 67 of the IT Act, publishing or transmitting obscene material online carries a harsher penalty — up to three years in prison and a fine of up to ₹5 lakh for a first-time offence.
Historically, Indian courts followed the outdated Hicklin test, which judged obscenity from the perspective of the most impressionable audience. Over time, this approach has been replaced by the “community standards” test, where a work is evaluated in its entirety rather than isolated words or images. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Aveek Sarkar vs State of West Bengal (2014) emphasised that content must be judged in context.
In March 2024, the Supreme Court quashed obscenity proceedings against the makers of College Romance, ruling that profanity alone does not amount to obscenity. The judgment reinforced that for content to be deemed obscene, it must actively arouse sexual thoughts.
The case against Allahbadia will likely test these principles again. Was his comment merely crude or truly obscene? As India navigates digital free speech, it must ensure that laws are applied fairly, without stifling creative expression. The case could further define the boundaries of online content regulation.