Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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.

Similar News