OBSCENITY:
POLITY
NEWS: I&B
Ministry warns OTTs against ‘obscene content’
 
WHAT’S
IN THE NEWS?
Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina
are under investigation for allegedly making obscene remarks on a YouTube show,
charged under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023,
highlighting the nuances of obscenity laws in India.
 
Comprehensive
Overview of Legal Provisions on Obscenity in India
·        
Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
 
  - Scope and Definitions: This section criminalizes
      the selling, importing, exporting, advertising, or profiting from obscene
      materials such as books, paintings, figures, and electronic content.
 
  - Criteria for Obscenity: Content is considered
      obscene if it is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, or is likely
      to deprave and corrupt those exposed to it.
 
  - Punishments: Specifies increasing
      penalties for repeat offenses, reflecting the law's intent to deter
      recurrent violations.
 
 
·        
Section 67 of the Information Technology
Act, 2000:
 
  - Digital Content Regulation: Targets online obscene
      content with a definition similar to that in Section 294 but imposes
      stricter penalties to address the broader reach and impact of digital
      platforms.
 
  - Penalties: Severe fines and imprisonment terms underscore
      the serious approach to controlling digital obscenity, recognizing the
      ease of access and potential harm of online content.
 
 
·        
Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
 
  - Public Obscenity Provisions: Criminalizes the performance
      of obscene acts or the utterance of obscene songs or words in public
      places if they cause annoyance.
 
  - Milder Penalties: Compared to other sections,
      the penalties here are less severe, reflecting the relatively lower
      perceived harm of public utterances versus widespread distribution.
 
 
·        
Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act, 1986:
 
  - Protection against Misrepresentation: Specifically addresses and
      punishes the depiction of women in an indecent or derogatory manner,
      reinforcing societal values against gender-based obscenity.
 
  - Penalties: Stipulates fines and imprisonment, with
      increased consequences for subsequent offenses to discourage repeat
      violations.
 
 
 
Judicial
Interpretation and Evolution of Obscenity Laws
 - Historical Basis - Hicklin Test:
 
 
  - Origin and Application: Established in the UK and
      initially adopted in India, this test assessed obscenity based on its
      potential impact on the most susceptible members of society, often
      disregarding artistic or social merit.
 
 
 - Shift to Community Standards Test:
 
 
  - Ranjit D. Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra
      (1964): While
      this case upheld the Hicklin test, it also set the stage for future
      reconsiderations of how obscenity should be judged in India.
 
  - Modern Judicial Approach: Emphasizes assessing the
      dominant theme of the work as a whole, against contemporary community
      standards rather than isolated content.
 
  - Aveek Sarkar vs State of West Bengal
      (2014): Marked
      a significant shift by adopting the community standards test, leading to
      more nuanced judgments that consider evolving societal norms and the
      context of the content.
 
 
 
Obscenity
and Online Content: Modern Challenges
 - College Romance Web Series Case (2024):
 
 
  - Redefining Obscenity: The Supreme Court’s decision
      to quash charges based on explicit language highlighted the distinction
      between language that expresses extreme emotions and language that
      arouses sexual desire.
 
  - Application of Community Standards: This case further solidified
      the move towards a more liberal and contextual approach to defining and
      regulating obscenity, recognizing the changing dynamics of language and
      expression in the digital age.
 
 
 
Conclusion
The evolution of India’s obscenity
laws from a rigid, moralistic approach (Hicklin test) to a more flexible,
context-sensitive framework (Community Standards Test) demonstrates an attempt
to balance the protection of societal values with the realities of modern
expression and media. The ongoing case against Allahbadia and Raina underscores
the challenges and complexities of enforcing these laws in a diverse and
digitally connected society.
 
Source:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/vulgarity-on-social-media-centre-issues-advisory-to-ott-platforms-self-regulation-bodies/article69242248.ece