Recently, an episode of popular Youtube comedy show “India’s Got Latent, hosted by comedian Samay Raina, featuring prominent podcaster and social-media celebrity Ranveer Allahabadia and others, drew widespread backlash due to its containing of perceived offensive content.
The show made national headlines for allegedly promoting obscure material and was strongly reprimanded by citizens and politicians alike.
Traditional and social media has now been overtaken by concerns regarding the limits to which freedom of speech can be exercised without infringing upon moral and societal decency.
As the clips of the show went viral, netizens outraged, demanded for stricter content regulation and appropriate actions against creators and individuals appearing in the show.
Some people argued that such content crosses the border of public decency while corrupting the minds of viewers while others defended the right of creators to have freedom of speech and expression.
Ranveer Allahbadia apologized publicly as the criticism grew, acknowledging that he had gone too far. To avoid more scrutiny, Samay Raina responded by removing all of the show’s episodes from his channel.
This controversy has, once again, called into question the liability of content creators and moderators in upholding media ethics within prevailing social and legal norms.
Freedom of Speech vs Censorship
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution allows for individuals to express their thoughts and expressions freely, ensuring unrestricted participation of individuals in the democratic discourse without fear of persecution or subjugation. However, this freedom has been subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), with the aim of balancing individual rights with public interests like order, decency and morality.
The government has the right to limit free speech when it is in the interest of “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.
While comedy is protected under the freedom of speech and expressions, several judicial precedents have held that such protection does not extend to contents capable of inciting public disorder or undermining the moral values of the public at large.
Obscenity: Legislative Definitions and Judicial Interpretations
Laws governing obscenity:-
- Section 294 BNS, 2023: It forbids the printing and distribution of pornographic books, pamphlets, and other materials that are regarded lewd or offensive, including pornographic ads.
- Section 295 BNS, 2023: It stipulates that anyone who sells, rents, distributes, displays, or circulates to any child any obscene material or attempts to do so faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a fine of up to two thousand rupees. If convicted a second or subsequent time, the sentence could be up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to five thousand rupees.
- Section 296 BNS, 2023: According to this section, anyone who, to the annoyance of others, engages in any obscene behavior in a public setting or sings, recites, or utters any obscene song, ballad, or words there or nearby faces up to either three months in jail, a fine of one thousand rupees, or both.
- Section 67 IT Act, 2000: Addresses the penalties for disseminating or publishing pornographic content online.
- Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act: Indecent depictions of women in ads, publications, writings, paintings, figures, or any other way are forbidden and punishable under this Act.
- Cinematograph Act, 1952: This Act gives the Central Board of Film Certification the authority to oversee and certify motion pictures to make sure they don’t include any objectionable or obscene material.
Judicial Interpretations of obscenity:-
- Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965 AIR 881): Ranjit Udeshi, a bookseller, was convicted under Sec. 292 of the IPC for selling the book “ Lady Chatterley’s Lover” which contained allegedly obscene content. The apex court, while applying the Hicklin test, upheld the conviction, stating that the circulation of the book can be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
- Regina v. Hicklin {11 Cox C.C. 19 (1868)}: This is the case where the Hicklin obscenity test was developed. Chief Justice Cockburn defined obscenity as any content with the capability “to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.”
The hicklin test was used to evaluate whether any portion of any content had the potential to corrupt morality of any individual, irrespective of its artistic or literary value. This test has now been replaced in most countries with more modern tests which consider the overall intent and effect of the material in question in a more nuanced manner.
- Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal {[2014] 2 S.C.R. 263}: The Supreme Court in this case considered the Community Standard Test to judge obscenity, moving away from the outdated Hicklin Test. In this case a photographer was being prosecuted for photographing tennis player Boris Becker and his wife in nude, the message of the picture being “The colour of the skin matters little and love champions over colour”. The court ruled that the photograph was not obscene, as it intended to convey a message regarding racism and not to corrupt the minds of any individual.
Recent Developments in the Case
Several participants of the show, the host, the creators and all the guests are currently facing legal actions by law enforcement authorities of several states including Mumbai, Rjasthan and Assam.
Ranveer Allahabadia and others have been booked under various provisions including:
- Section 79 of BNS, 2023: For insulting women’s modesty through words, gestures, sounds or objects.
- Section 196 of BNS, 2023: For promoting hatred and enmity between groups.
- Section 299 of BNS, 2023: For undertaking malicious acts that insult religious beliefs of any class of people.
- Section 296 of BNS, 2023: For obscene acts or songs in public places.
- Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023: For establishing joint criminal liability.
- Section 67 of IT Act, 2000: For transmitting obscene content in digital form.
The cyber cell of the Maharashtra Police has sought for removal of all episodes of the show from youtube, Apporva Mukhija, aka The Rebel Kid, was summoned by the Mumbai Police and the Guwahati Crime Branch for her involvement in the promotion of the content, Ashish Chanchlani was named in FIRs by the Assam Police, Samay Raina was summoned by the National Commission for women and Maharashtra Cyber Cell.
Ranveer Allahabadia himself, facing multiple legal actions from several states, approached the Supreme Court for seeking Protection from arrest and consolidation of the FIRs.
Represented by Abhinav Chandrachud, Allahabadia relied on Apoorva Arora v. State (3 S.C.R. 1147; 2024 INSC 223) to establish that usage of profanity did not amount to obscenity.
On the 18th of February, a bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh granted interim protection from all arrests to Allahbadia while ordering that no new FIRs are to be filed against him in the given matter. The court also directed Allahabadia to deposit his passport with the authorities and restrained him from performing any shows in the interim.
The ‘India’s Got Talent’ controversy has once again resurrected the debate on limitations of creative freedom and on the accountability that creators bear for content that they create. With the Supreme Court’s severe critique, calling the material ‘disgusting’ and ‘insulting,’ grave questions arise as to where one can delineate the balance between creative expression and social responsibility. To what extent can one say that the creators and the platform could be prosecuted for content that they create? But, the larger question at hand is: Can the law come into play, from which point and to what extent? Such discourses give rise to the idea that the balance between free speech and public morality is an ever evolving matter that can be appraised to a greater extent under the existing legal framework and provisions.
Author: Suprana Chakraborty, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.
References
- “India’s Got Latent: Obscene or Not?” Bar & Bench, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/indias-got-latent-obscene-or-not
- “India’s Got Latent Controversy, JP Associates Blog” (Feb. 20, 2025), https://jpassociates.co.in/blog-indias-got-latent/
- “Obscenity Laws in India, Drishti Judiciary Editorial” (Feb. 20, 2025), https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/obscenity-laws-in-india.
- “FIR Against Ranveer Allahbadia, Samay Raina, 28 Others: What Are the Charges?”, India Today (Feb. 12, 2025),
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/fir-against-ranveer-allahbadia-samay-raina-28-others-what-are-the-charges-2678757-2025-02-12