MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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