Supreme Court quashes obscenity case against The Viral Fever

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed a criminal case filed against popular Indian production company The Viral Fever (TVF) over allegations that there was obscene content in its web series, College Romance [TVF Media Labs Pvt Ltd and ors vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and anr]..A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha stated that no violation of Sections 67 (publishing or transmitting, in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious) and 67A (punishment for publishing material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) was made out.."The enquiry under Section 292 of the IPC or under Section 67 of the IT Act does not hinge on whether the language or words are decent, or whether they are commonly used in the country. Rather, from the plain language of the provision, the inquiry is to determine whether the content is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, or tends to deprave and corrupt the minds of those in whose hands it is likely to fall", the top court observed.It, thus, quashed the first information report (FIR) lodged against the show's director, Simarpreet Singh, the writers, Kunal Aneja and Abhishek Srivastava and the actors, Apoorva Arora and Gagan Arora..The Court proceeded to allow the appeals filed by TVF and its show-runners challenging a Delhi High Court judgment from March last year that had ruled that the language used in the web show, College Romance, was obscene, profane and vulgar, and would deprave and corrupt the the minds of young people..In the March 2023 judgment, the High Court had held that TVF, the show's director Simarpreet Singh and actor Apoorva Arora are liable to face action under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act.The High Court had stated that the Indian morality and values could only be judged in the Indian context, keeping in mind the contemporary standards of civility and morality.It had even asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) to take steps for enforcing stricter application of its IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021..This verdict was challenged before the top court, which sought the response of the Delhi police in the matter in May last year. The FIR quashed today had been registered after the High Court verdict..In its judgment, the apex court made it clear that profanity is not obscene per se. It criticised the High Court for wrongly framing and deciding the issue before it."The High Court embarked on a wrong journey and arrived at the wrong destination ... The specific material which the High Court found to be obscene, i.e., that which tends to deprave and corrupt impressionable minds, was “foul, indecent and profane” language. Nothing more. The High Court has equated profanities and vulgarity with obscenity, without undertaking a proper or detailed analysis".The meaning of the expletive language was taken by the High Court in its literal sense and robbed of context, it was made clear. "While the literal meaning of the terms used may be sexual in nature and they may refer to sexual acts, their usage does not arouse sexual feelings or lust in any viewer of ordinary prudence and common sense. Rather, the common usage of these words is reflective of emotions of anger, rage, frustration, grief, or perhaps excitement."The plot and theme of the web-series, a light-hearted show on the college lives of young students, makes clear the absence of sexual connotations. "Neither did the creator of the web-series intend for the language to be taken in its literal sense nor is that the impact on a reasonable viewer who will watch the material."The bench concluded by pointing to the deficiencies in the High Court's approach in examining the case for obscenity."The objectivity with which a judicial mind is expected to examine the work in question was completely lost when the High Court evidently could not extricate itself from the courtroom atmosphere. The sensitivity and discomfort of the High Court is evident ... The approach adopted by the High Court ... is based on irrelevant considerations. Similarly, the metric to assess obscenity and legality of any content cannot be that it must be appropriate to play in the courtroom while maintaining the court’s decorum and integrity." One cannot gauge the appropriateness of content in such a manner, it was underscored. "Such an approach unduly curtails the freedom of expression that can be exercised and compels the maker of the content to meet the requirements of judicial propriety, formality, and official language. Here again, the High Court committed a serious error in decisionmaking.".The appeals were, therefore, allowed. The ruling of the High Court and all criminal proceedings in the matter against TVF and its staff were quashed..Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi, Madhavi Divan, Sajan Poovayya, S Niranjan Reddy and KV Viswanathan (now a Supreme Court judge), along with Advocates Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Raghav Shankar, Misha Rohatgi, Pallavi Mishra, Sujoy Mukherji and Tarini Kulkarni, instructed by Naik Naik & Co. represented TVF, and the show's director, writers, and actors over the course of the hearings.The appeals before the Supreme Court were filed by two teams, the lead ones through advocate Yugandhara Pawar Jha along with advocates Harshvardhan Jha, and Aman Pathak. The others were filed through advocate EC Agarwala along with advocates Ankur Saigal, Chirag Nayak and Lakshmi Iyer.Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj with advocates Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Sharath Nambiar, Sanjay Kr. Tyagi, Sridhar Potaraju, Nidhi Khanna, Karthik Jasra, Dr Arun Kumar Yadav, and Arvind Singh appeared for the Delhi Police..[Read judgment]