Previous 7 / 41 Next

VERDICTUM.IN NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001676 Nagar be directed to register and FIR and to conduct / get conducted investigation into the allegation of the complainant. It is needless to say that the direction to register an FIR, it does not necessary imply that the allegation of the complainant are true and correct, rather the allegations of the complainant have to pass the litmus test of investigation before ascertaining the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. It is hereby made clear that SHO concerned is not bound to register the case in accordance with the Sections (Penal Provisions) enumerated by the complainant, rather he must exercise the judicious discretion in invoking the relevant sections of the IPC and other penal statues in accordance of the facts set out in the complainant. It is a trite law, however, still at the cost of repetition, it is hereby clarified that the direction to register an FIR in the present matter does not include a direction to arrest the accused. With these observations, the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C stands allowed…” 11. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed a revision petition before learned ASJ, and vide order dated 10.11.2020, learned ASJ was pleased to pass an order whereby the order of the learned ACMM was modified and it was held as under: “…8. The present revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 17/09/2019, whereby the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., filed by the original complainant (respondent no.2 herein), was allowed, while observing that the vulgar language incorporated in the webseries titled as “College Romance” is prima facie capable of appealing to the prurient interests of the audiences and circulation of such obscene material on various internet portals, prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences punishable u/s 292/294 & 67/67 IT Act and SHO PS Mukherjee Nagar was directed to register an FIR and to conduct/get conducted investigation into the allegation of the complainant (respondent no.2 herein). This Court has gone CRL.M.C. 2214/2020 & connected matters Page 7 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