VERDICTUM.IN NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001676 same obscene, sexually explicit language to others and the male protagonist is seen enjoying and appreciating her conduct. The male protagonist uses words describing male and female genitalia and sexual act, thus by words, painting pictures of sexually explicit act which brings it under ambit of arousing prurient feelings by so doing. There’s no escape from the same by saying that the said act was not done, shown or filmed. Depiction does not connote filming alone but conveying by a medium, which in this case is spoken language. Therefore, the content as discussed above will attract the criminality as laid down under Section 67 as well as 67A of IT Act. The male protagonist in this case who uses such language has been referred to as ‘Bagga’. The bug of obscene, profane and bad language of ‘Bagga’ cannot be allowed to pollute the language of people. 44. As far as the argument of petitioner no.1 that it is in no manner related to the YouTube channel ‘The Timeliners’ and the web series titled ‘College Romance’ is concerned, the fact that the website of petitioner no. 1 in CRL.M.C. 2214/2020 i.e. ‘www.tvfplay.com’ reflects ‘The Timeliners’ as one of its channels cannot be ignored. However, the question regarding ownership of the several channels inter-se between the parties is a matter of investigation and cannot be dealt with by this Court, at this stage. Further, petitioner no. 2 and 3, admittedly, are the directors and shareholders of petitioner no.1. 45. This Court notes that it is specifically mentioned in Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, which mandates that the online curated content be classified. The specific rules under Information CRL.M.C. 2214/2020 & connected matters Page 23 of 41