Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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