Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal 9 and followed in decisions of various High Courts10. By applying this test, the High Court held as follows: First, applying the standard of a common prudent man, it found that the episode did not use civil language and there was excessive use of profanities and vulgar expletives, and a clear description and reference to sexually explicit acts. The determination of how the content impacts a common man must be determined in the Indian context, as per Indian morality, keeping in mind contemporary standards of civility and morality.11 In the allegedly offending portion (in Season 1, episode 5 from 5:24 to 6:40 minutes and 25:28 to 25:46 minutes), the male protagonist in a conversation with the female protagonist uses terms describing male and female genitalia and sexual acts, thereby making them sexually explicit and arousing prurient feelings. While the female protagonist is heard objecting to the language and expressing disgust over it, she does so by repeating the same to the male protagonist. The male protagonist then uses more vulgar expletives and indecent language, which is repeated by the (2014) 4 SCC 257, 2014 INSC 75. G. Venkateswara Rao v. State of AP in Writ Petition 1420 of 2020; Jaykumar Bhagwanrao Gore v. State of Maharashtra 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7283; Pramod Anand Dhumal v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 34; Ekta Kapoor v. State of MP 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4581, as cited in paras 23-26 of the impugned judgment. 11 In para 37 of the impugned judgment, the High Court relied on Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra (1985) 4 SCC 289, 1985 INSC 205 where it was held that the regard must be given to contemporary morals and national standards in judging whether content is obscene. 9 10 5