Ranveer Allahbadia remark row: India's 'obscenity' laws explained

Ranveer Allahbadia or BeerBiceps is facing the brunt of a 'joke' the content creator cracked on India's Got Latent-- a comedy show hosted by Samay Raina.

The YouTuber has now become the subject of a Mumbai police probe over the allegedly obscene comments made during his guest appearance. Raina too is under investigation.

Mumbai police are yet to register an FIR, but the Assam cops have registered a complaint on February 13 against Allahbadia and Raina including charges of 'obscene acts' under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Here's a look at how obscenity laws work in India.

What are the laws governing obscenity in online content?

BNS Section 294 punishes those who sell, import, export, advertise, or profit from obscene material such as books, paintings, and figures and also includes the “display of any content in electronic form”.

Such material is described as "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest” — material which is overtly and excessively sexual — or which would “tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely…to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."

Punishment includes up to two years behind bars, and a fine of up to Rs 5000 for first-time offenders.

Publishing or transmitting obscene material online is also punishable under Information Technology Act, 2000 -- Section 67. Here, one can be jailed up to three years, and fined up to Rs 5 lakh for a first-time offence. The parameters defining obscenity is the same here.

History of obscenity rulings in India

The most important ruling on obscenity laws involved Lady Chatterley's Lover -- a book by D H Lawrence, which was considered scandalous for its times due to its depictions of sexual encounters. It faced obscenity trials in India and the United Kingdom.

At that time, in 1964, the Supreme Court of India held the book as obscene under Section 292 of the now-overhauled Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the case of Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1964). The top court borrowed from the British case of Queen v. Hicklin (1868) -- at which point their legal system adopted the 'Hicklin test' to determine if something was obscene or not.

The court held the work to be obscene if it had the tendency to "deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences."

However, the standard for obscenity in the US had changed years before the SC pronounced this judgement and the Obscene Publications Act 1959 said that a work must be considered 'as a whole' before its likely effect on audiences is mulled upon.

The US also shifted from the 'Hicklin test' in the 1957 case of Roth v United States. This case would go on to influence the Indian Supreme Court to adopt 'community standards' test to gauge obscenity, as seen in Aveek Sarkar v State of West Bengal (2014).

The court quashed obscenity proceedings against magazines which carred a photo of Boris Becker -- the tennis player -- in the nude with his fiancee. The SC held that applying the Hicklin test would result in the work being judged for "obscenity based on isolated passages of a work considered out of context and judged by their apparent influence on most susceptible readers, such as children or weak-minded adults."

Indian courts and obscenity hearings in online content

The Supreme Court in March 2024 quashed proceedings against the makers of 'College Romance' -- a YouTube series, under Section 292 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act. While the prosecution had alleged that the show used vulgar language and the plot involved students offensively discussing and partaking in sexual activities, the court held there was a fine line between obscenity and language that is "foul, indecent, and profane."

The bench observed "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." Applying the 'community standards' test, the court ruled "While the literal meaning of the terms used may be sexual in nature and they may refer to sexual acts, their usage does not arouse sexual feelings or lust in any viewer of ordinary prudence and common sense. Rather, the common usage of these words is reflective of emotions of anger, rage, frustration, grief, or perhaps excitement."

Multiple complaints were filed against actor Ranveer Singh in 2022 for a nude photoshoot, post which Mumbai Police had called him for questioning.

If Allahbadia's case moves ahead, the court will have to consider the show as a whole and see if the comments were just vulgar and profane or if it can be construed as obscene for arousing sexual thoughts.