Offensive language in web series, OTT content not criminal: Supreme Court

In a landmark ruling on Tuesday, India’s Supreme Court said the use of offensive language in web series and OTT platforms cannot be criminalised, underscoring the importance of upholding freedom of speech and expression. A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha argued that criminalizing content for obscenity is an overreach that violates artistic creativity and freedom of expression.

The court emphasized the difference between vulgarity and obscenity, noting that while vulgar content may cause disgust, it does not necessarily corrupt or corrupt the mind, which is the main criterion for content to be considered obscene under the law.

Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgment, criticized the notion of regulating online content by criminalizing it, calling it a disproportionate response that logically fails to uphold the principles of free speech. The justices also rejected the idea that content’s legality should be measured by its suitability for presentation in a courtroom, arguing that such a standard unfairly restricts creative expression.

The decision came in response to a criminal case against the creators and distributors of the web series “College Romance,” which was accused of excessive profanity and vulgar language, leading to prosecution under the Information Technology Act. The Delhi High Court had earlier ordered the registration of a first information report against the serial for allegedly broadcasting obscene material.

Also read

However, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and criticized its approach to determining obscenity. The court explained that the true measure of obscenity is whether the content is likely to defile or defile its audience, a test that the Supreme Court failed to properly apply.

While defending the web series, the Supreme Court noted that the ‘college romance’ is a light-hearted portrayal of college life that uses explanations for real emotions like anger and frustration rather than sexual content. The ruling emphasized that the mere use of profanity does not equate to obscenity, thereby protecting the series and its creators from criminal liability.