VERDICTUM.IN NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001676 makes it evident that it was with a view to restrict the operation of certain kind of adult entertainment considered unsuitable for people below 18 years. It was developed by classification and the content considered unacceptable for general view was classified by certification so that those who knowingly make a choice to view them have sufficient maturity to exercise their choice in a responsible manner. 39. The community standard cannot be the standard of a particular local territory but is essentially in the national context. The fact that the words used in the web series are of nature that cannot even be reproduced in the judgment even for the purpose of adjudication is a pointer towards the extent of profanity of the language used by the web series. III. 40. Freedom of Speech vs. Public Decency and Morality It was also argued that the petitioners have fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and if the complainant does not like the content, he/she may not see it. While discussing so, it will be important to deal with the argument regarding Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) of Constitution of India lays down the restriction on the freedom under Article 19(1)(a) which can be in interest of public decency or morality. Therefore, necessarily the material in question in the present case will also have to be tested in light of the fact as to whether the content of the web series is against public decency or morality. CRL.M.C. 2214/2020 & connected matters Page 20 of 41