Recently, Ranveer Allahbadia, founder of the popular YouTube channel ‘Beer Biceps’, found himself under investigation by the Mumbai police after allegedly making obscene comments during a guest appearance on the YouTube show ‘India’s Got Latent’. The controversy has expanded, with comedian Samay Raina, the show's host, also facing legal scrutiny. While no FIR has yet been filed by the Mumbai police, the Assam police registered a complaint on February 10, 2025, against both Allahbadia and Raina, charging them with “obscene acts” under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The case raises important questions about the legal frameworks governing obscenity, especially when it comes to online content. India’s laws on obscenity have evolved, particularly with the proliferation of digital spaces, and understanding how these laws are applied is crucial.
Which laws govern obscenity in online content?
In India, several laws govern obscenity, particularly when it appears in digital or electronic formats.
Section 294 of the BNS deals with the sale, display, or transmission of obscene material, including in electronic form. It defines obscene content as material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, or is likely to deprave and corrupt those who are exposed to it. Penalties for violating this provision can include imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to Rs 5,000 for first-time offenders.
Moreover, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, addresses the publishing or transmitting of obscene material online. It mirrors the definition provided under Section 294 of the BNS, but the punishment is more severe, including imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh for first-time offenders.
The evolution of obscenity laws in India
Historically, Indian obscenity laws have been shaped by significant judicial rulings. One of the most important early rulings was the 1964 case of Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, in which the Supreme Court of India considered the book Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence to be obscene under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This decision borrowed from the 1868 British case Queen v. Hicklin, which laid down the "Hicklin test" for determining obscenity. According to this test, if a work had the tendency to corrupt and deprave those exposed to it, it could be deemed obscene.
However, over the years, the definition of obscenity in the UK and the US shifted. In 1959, the UK’s Obscene Publications Act required works to be considered in their entirety, while in 1957, the US Supreme Court introduced the "community standards" test in Roth v. United States. This approach examined whether the dominant theme of the material appealed to the prurient interest of the average person, applying contemporary community standards.
India's legal landscape evolved as well, with the Supreme Court adopting a "community standards" test in the 2014 case of Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal. The court ruled that works should not be judged in isolation, but rather as a whole, to prevent arbitrary conclusions based on out-of-context material. This shift aimed to reflect modern societal norms and values, recognising that not all potentially offensive material is obscene.
With the rise of online platforms, the definition of obscenity has been further tested. In 2024, the Supreme Court quashed proceedings against the creators of the YouTube web series College Romance, which was accused of containing vulgar language and sexual content. The court ruled that there is a distinction between obscenity and language that is simply "foul, indecent and profane". The justices clarified that while the language in the series may be sexual in nature, it did not evoke lust or sexual thoughts in the average viewer. The court further applied the "community standards" test, ruling that the words used in the series reflected emotions like anger, frustration, or excitement, rather than arousal.
This ruling highlights the ongoing shift in the Indian judiciary's approach to online content. It suggests that not all crude language or sexual references automatically qualify as obscene, provided they do not elicit sexual or lustful responses in the average viewer.
In the case involving Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina, the courts will have to determine whether their comments on the show were merely profane or if they can be considered obscene in the legal sense. If the case moves forward, the court will likely apply the same principles as in past rulings, considering the content in its entirety and evaluating whether it is likely to arouse sexual thoughts in the average viewer.
The investigation serves as a reminder of the evolving nature of obscenity laws in the age of digital media. As platforms like YouTube and others continue to shape public discourse, the law must balance freedom of expression with the need to protect societal norms. The outcome of this case may provide further clarification on how India’s legal system will address online content in the future.
In summary, while obscenity laws in India are clear, the application of these laws to online content remains a complex and evolving issue. As public figures like Allahbadia and Raina face legal scrutiny, the courts will continue to navigate the intersection of free speech, public morality, and evolving cultural standards.