Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Excessive Use of Profanities Not Equivalent to Obscenity: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against ‘College Romance’ Web-Series Creators

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, has quashed the FIR against the creators of the web-series ‘College Romance,’ stating that the excessive use of profanities and vulgar language does not automatically equate to obscenity. This ruling comes in light of the appeal filed by the web-series’ creators against the High Court’s order refusing to quash the FIR lodged for alleged obscene content.

Legal Point of the Judgement: The apex court’s decision primarily hinged on interpreting Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court examined whether the usage of profane language in the web-series constituted obscenity or sexually explicit content warranting prosecution.

Background and Facts: The issue originated with the FIR lodged against the appellants, including actors and creators of ‘College Romance,’ for allegedly publishing obscene and sexually explicit content, particularly in the episode titled ‘Happily Fd Up’. The High Court had dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Court Assessment: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, delivering the judgment, meticulously analyzed the meaning of ‘obscenity’ and ‘sexually explicit’ under the said sections. The Court noted, “Vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity,” distinguishing between mere profanity and what legally constitutes obscenity. The judgment underscored that for content to be deemed obscene, it must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, or have a tendency to deprave and corrupt.

In interpreting ‘sexually explicit material,’ the Court clarified that the content in question did not fall under this category, emphasizing the difference between explicit sexual content and content containing vulgar language. The Court observed, “The literal meaning of such language, although sexual in nature, does not arouse sexual feelings or lust in a viewer of ordinary prudence.”

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the FIR, reiterating the protection offered to artistic expression under the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Date of Decision: March 19, 2024

Apoorva Arora & Anr. Etc. Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & Anr.

Latest Legal News