Case title: Apoorva Arora and Anr. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Case no.: SLP (CRL.) No. 5463-5464/2023
Decided on: 19.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice A.S. Bopanna, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In this case, a complaint was lodged against the creators, actors, and casting directors involved in the production of a web-series titled ‘Happily F****d Up’. The complaint alleged that the web-series contained vulgar and obscene language, violating the provisions of Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalize the publication and transmission of obscene material in electronic form. Following the complaint, the appellants approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR filed against them. However, the High Court dismissed their petition, prompting the appellants to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case are Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act:
Section 67: This section deals with the punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. It outlines the penalties for publishing material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt individuals who may come across it.
Section 67A: This section criminalizes the publication and transmission of material containing sexually explicit acts or conduct in electronic form. It specifies the punishments for those who publish or transmit such material, including imprisonment and fines for first and subsequent convictions.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellants, including actors, casting directors, and creators of the web-series, argued the following contentions in the case:
They contended that the allegedly offending portions of the web-series did not meet the threshold for obscenity as defined under the Information Technology Act (IT Act). They argued that the vulgar language used in the web-series may not necessarily appeal to prurient interests and, therefore, should not be considered obscene.
The appellants challenged the FIR filed against them under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, asserting that the language used in the web-series did not amount to obscenity as per the legal provisions. They sought to quash the FIR and argued against the allegations of producing and transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
The appellants filed appeals against the judgments of the lower courts, contending that the orders directing the registration of FIR under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act were not justified. They sought a judicial review of the decisions that upheld the FIR against them based on the allegations of obscenity in the web-series.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The complainant contended that the web-series contained vulgar and obscene language, specifically in Season 1, Episode 5 titled ‘Happily F****d Up’. They asserted that the language used in the episode crossed the threshold of decency and was inappropriate for public viewing.
The respondents argued that the content of the web-series violated Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, which prohibit the publication and transmission of obscene material in electronic form. They maintained that the material in question fell within the purview of these legal provisions and warranted action against the appellants.
The respondents supported the judgments of the lower courts that upheld the FIR against the appellants. They contended that the content of the web-series, particularly the language and themes depicted, constituted obscenity under the IT Act and required legal intervention to address the alleged violations.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
In the case involving the web-series ‘Happily F****d Up’, the Supreme Court conducted a thorough analysis to determine if the content crossed the threshold of obscenity under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act. The Court stressed the importance of an objective assessment based on community standards, considering the creator’s intent, likely audience, and potential impact on viewers’ minds. After scrutinizing the specific episode in question, the Court ruled in favor of the appellants. It concluded that while the language and themes in the web-series were provocative and potentially vulgar, they did not meet the legal criteria for obscenity. The judgment highlighted the need for a nuanced evaluation of alleged obscenity, taking into account factors such as artistic value, audience perception, and prevailing community standards.
By quashing the FIR against the appellants, the Court upheld the principles of free speech and artistic expression while recognizing the boundaries set by legal restrictions on obscene content. The decision underscored the importance of balancing freedom of expression with societal norms and legal regulations. In essence, the Supreme Court’s analysis and judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of obscenity laws in the digital content realm. It reaffirmed the significance of a balanced approach to evaluating alleged obscenity, ensuring that artistic expression is protected while also upholding legal standards. The ruling emphasized the need for a careful and objective assessment of content to determine its compliance with obscenity laws and community standards.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement
