Does India Have Comedy Laws ?

Author: Disha Sisodia, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi

Introduction

The recent controversy on the remarks of Ranveer Allahabadia and Samay Raina on their show on YouTube has sparked public outrage.

Multiple FIRs have been lodged against the creators on the panel of the show and especially against Ranveer Allahabadia in Assam, Mumbai , Delhi, etc. Political involvement, social media outrage, primetime shows' major bulletin , all of it has made it to India's most pressing concern. Ranveer has approached the Supreme Court to consolidate the FIRs to conduct a single trial for the same offence reported at multiple places.

There are many perspectives to the present situation where a certain section has demonstrated outrage whereas the other section has appealed to not give undue attention rather than ignore their forthcoming work. But, law has to have its objective course unlike the public opinion. The present case involves distasteful remarks which don't need further elaboration or discussion, neither the discussion must revolve around the merits or the statement . But, because of the depravity of mind, large sentiments are hurt and call it out as 'obscene' is concerning.

Questions of law on obscene comedy

This issue has been interpreted by many Indians ,But, the lack of legal awareness restricts the understanding of law amongst the masses and its procedure to only a few. The limited legal provisions on the said issue are also concerning as the provisions of law on obscenity are subjectively ambiguous in interpretation. Thus, it is important to comprehend the controversy in lucid fashion to easily predict the legal outcomes.

The pressing legal issue which lies in the present case is,

• Whether the statement is criminal in nature ?

• Whether the remarks are obscene?

• Whether the courts can restrict or lay guidelines on comedy ?

The answer to these questions begins from the understanding of the statutory provisions on obscenity.

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 ,

u/s 296: Whoever, to the annoyance of others,

• does any obscene act in any public place; or

• sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.(Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both-Cognizable-Bailable-Triable by Any Magistrate.)

Under the Information Technology Act,2002: Under Section 67 : Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

The essentials in the provisions are to

a. invoke lascivious or prurient interests

b. deprive or corrupt the minds of people

c. obscenity in public places/ forum

In the Apoorva Arora v Govt. of NCT of Delhi,( 2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed the prosecution and held that use of distasteful foul language cannot be interpreted as obscene invoking sexual or lustful thoughts.

In Aveek Sarkar v State of West Bengal and Anr.(2014), had adopted the Hicklin test, wherein the objective assessment of obscenity wasn't the focal point rather community standards test was adopted, as a parameter wherein if invocation of lascivious or sexual or prurient interests amongst the people and their perspective towards the act was considered primal to ascertain obscenity.

Abhinav Chandrachud,counsel for Ranveer Allahabadia presented the case to the Hon'ble supreme court on 18th February,2025. Hon’ble Bench composed of Honb'le Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K Singh. The Court ordered no arrest of Allahabadia and no new multiple FIRs shall be lodged on the same offence in any police station. Court has directed Allahabadia and his associates to not publish its work on you tube or social media until further orders. It has ordered to surrender his passport to the police and cooperate in police investigation and shall not be accompanied by his counsel to the police station.

Though the oral observation of the Court is relevant to ponder upon. Court had lashed upon the petitioner because of his distasteful and obnoxious remarks which reflect the depravity of mind. Further, the court had stressed upon the impact of his remarks on the daughters and sisters of this country and incurring insult upon the sanctity of relationship of parents.

While arguing, Ld. counsel Abhinav Chandrachud stated that there are recurrent death threats against the petitioner which are unjust and disproportionate to the act. To which the court replied that the act is a reflection of depravity of mind and cannot be defended. The counsel objected to the definition of 'obscenity' and argued that this statement cannot be objectively framed as obscene. Court observed that the remarks are prima facie obscene and doesn't need any elaboration on its contrary.

In the past several FIRs have been lodged against various comedians like Munawar Farooqui and Anubhav Singh Bassi. There have been instances of religious outrage against particular statements by the comedians, which was followed by brief incarceration.

But, what this case has brought into attention is the regulation of digital media . Some people have demanded government intervention and regulation of digital media. Whereas contrary views have opposed the intervention and called it out as a violation of the fundamental right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,1950. This issue needs further clarification because what is obscene is still a matter of judicial discretion and needs utmost clarity. Government regulation on digital media is on requirement but, shall not dictate the conditions of work and content .Such that it curtails artistic independence and creativity .

The underlining debate on the undue coverage to this issue has highlighted that it is due to an ulterior motive to bring the Broadcast Bill, which faced backlash due to increase in government intervention and regulation. The law shall regulate the quality of content, lay restrictions on language and visuals shown on the digital media which can be accessed by children.

This needs a cogent reply by the government and the ministries as this issue cannot be left unchecked after such upheaval. Hon'ble Court in its observation has directed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati reply on behalf of the government on any regulation of digital media content.

Conclusion

The discussion on merits of this case is a separate issue, but what hasn't been solved or laid as a law despite many controversies, is a substantive piece of legislation on publishing of content online. Restrictions of the language used, what issues can be covered or discussed publicly, responsibility to be borne by the creators of their work and remarks and not leave it to the understanding and choice of people to watch or not. Public forums like social media shall not be misused by content creators, especially those who attach credibility and reliability due to their work, like Ranveer Allahabadia. Though this opinion can be debated by many and needs more constructive debate and resolution. This issue involves the youth and their opinion must be included while forming regulations.