Previous 41 / 41 Next

VERDICTUM.IN NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001676 Ministry of Information and Technology to the situations which are fast emerging on a daily basis and to take steps for enforcing stricter application of its rules qua the intermediaries as notified in Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and make any laws or rules as deemed appropriate in its wisdom, in light of the observations made in this judgment. 85. Accordingly, the present petition disposed of in above terms. 86. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, and concerned officials of YouTube India. A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 6, 2023/ns CRL.M.C. 2214/2020 & connected matters Page 41 of 41

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Apoorva Aroraa v. State (TVF Series Case)

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: Mar 19, 2024

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible
Motion Granted
Reversed Lower Court

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction, Order, or Motion Granted

Keywords

Content Moderation
Digital Rights
Indecency / Obscenity

Judicial Body: Supreme (court of final appeal)

Court Name: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: 2024 INSC 223

Case Summary: The Supreme Court of India held that the web series College Romance, despite its use of expletives and profane language, does not violate Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act. The case arose from a complaint alleging that the series violated the IT Act and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act due to its explicit content. Aggrieved by the complaint and the subsequent First Information Report (FIR), the Appellants sought to quash the complaint in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed their petition. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s reasoning, clarifying that while the series may be vulgar or distasteful, it does not meet the legal standards for obscenity or sexually explicit material. The Court clarified that obscenity under the law requires content to be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, or tend to deprave and corrupt those likely to view it. Profanity alone, the Court emphasized, does not meet this threshold. Additionally, the Court found that the High Court’s reliance on “impressionable minds” as a standard was inappropriate, as legal obscenity must be judged by the perspective of the average viewer, not a hypersensitive or overly impressionable audience. In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the Appellants, underscoring the importance of a nuanced approach to regulating content while protecting artistic freedom.

Case Significance: The ruling expands the freedom of expression by clarifying that the use of expletives and profane language in creative works, such as the web series College Romance, does not automatically constitute obscenity under the law. By rejecting the Delhi High Court’s approach that equated vulgarity with legal obscenity, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of context, intent, and the perspective of the average viewer in determining whether content is truly obscene. This decision reinforces the principle that artistic and creative expressions should not be unduly censored based on subjective notions of decency or propriety, thus safeguarding the space for diverse and potentially provocative content within the bounds of the law. The ruling, therefore, strengthens the protection of freedom of expression, ensuring that it is not curtailed by overly broad interpretations of obscenity laws.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

APC
CIPIT
Columbia

Date Updated: Dec 30, 2024

Primary Documents

High Court Judgment
English
Download View
Supreme Court Judgment
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Apoorva Aroraa v. State (TVF Series Case)

Primary Documents

Notifications