LATENT is the last word that would define the current quandary that surrounds the online internet sensation, ‘India’s Got Latent’ (hereinafter Latent). Currently, my LinkedIn is swarming with quick analysis posts deconstructing the jokes and the jokers of the latest episode. While the idea of a quick LinkedIn post is inviting, I decided to sit down as a patient lawyer and try and deep dive into this issue and get to the root of the legality of the issue at hand. As an advocate, I am concerned more about the legal aspects of the episode than the moral turpitude of the same which at the moment seems to be the headline everywhere.
In classic Supreme Court fashion, the issue at hand is one and only; is profanity equal to obscenity?
For the miniscule fraction of the population who might not know what this article is all about; this is about the statements made by Ranveer Allahbadia a.k.a Beer Biceps which has disturbed both viewers and non-viewers of Latent. This piece borrows heavily from the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Apoorva Arora and Anr., v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2024 INSC 223, where the Hon’ble court quashed the FIR against Apoorva Arora and others following allegations of obscenity in her web series, ‘College Romance.’ The Latent situation and the Apoorva Arora case have a lot in common; both are a result of the internet’s alacrity towards cancel culture.
I will address the issue primarily from 2 lenses: legislation wise (Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Information Technology Act, 2000) and judicial precedent wise. The body will contain an amalgamated analysis of both.
The Laws that can be evoked in the instant case.
The two primary legislations that can be evoked in this case are the Indian Penal Code (now renamed BNS) and the IT Act, 2000.
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024): The relevant sections that apply to the instant case are: Section 292, IPC 1860 (Section 294 of BNS):
292. Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.—
(1) For the purposes of sub-section
(2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
2. The Information Technology Act, 2000: The relevant sections that can be applied to the instant case are: Section 67, 67A:
‘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…’
‘67A. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.–Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct …’
For the purposes of obscenity, the overarching definition of Section 292, IPC 1860, and the legal developments in the same shall apply to Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000. The IPC being a much older law has had much more run ins with the Apex Court thus facilitating an exhaustive set of definition and interpretation of obscenity which squarely apply to Section 67, IT Act, 2000.
The crux of the matter is what is obscenity? If we consider Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, (1985) 4 SCC 289 and Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1, vulgar/vulgarity does not equate to obscenity. Mere words cannot amount to obscenity unless they involve lascivious elements that arouse sexual thoughts and feelings, which is not the effect of the statements made by Ranveer Allahbadia. While the crux of the statement is related to the act of sex, the so-called lascivious elements mentioned above is not potent enough to arouse sexual thoughts or feelings, rather it exhorts disgust and grimace from the public at large. This is pertinent as it highlights the shock and awe intent of the statements made and steers it away from patent criminality. There might not be sufficient ground for a criminal case or FIR to hold but there seems to be sufficient ground for the show to face immense backlash on the internet.
However, if we apply the dated Hicklin Test which was applied in erstwhile Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881 which primarily talks about the tendency to deprave and corrupt the minds of those who are open to immoral influences and into whose hands a contentious publication is likely to fall. Here, on the point of publication and access, it is pertinent to note, the episode was released to a ‘members only’ platform, thus making it a restricted publication. However, the episode was not restricted per se as the same was leaked in the form of short format content and shared across platforms lending to its instant virality.
Thus, the question we need to ask ourselves is: with the content leaked out to millions of underage internet consumers, does it have the potential to deprave and corrupt the minds of those into whose hands (or phones in this case) it falls? Does lampooning parents for the sake of a strong punchline have the same impact on an adult as it does on a pre-teen who is probably a big Latent fan? The answers to these questions are manifold and shall make us wonder if online internet regulation, especially for kids should be an active legislative and policy interference at this day and age. Australia’s complete ban on social media for kids under the age of 16 is probably too intense. France and Italy’s compulsory parents’ permission layer for opening a social media account is milder. China meanwhile, has restricted the use of social media to 2 hours for kids every day. While these policies seem good on paper, there is no report of their real time impact. The debates around freedom of speech are slightly unnecessary at this point, however, I feel like we are missing out on the necessary debates around addressing the real consumers of this kind of content. While older generation is actively commenting and taking all legitimate steps to curb down and get the show cancelled, we really need to take some time and address the issue at the core rather than haranguing on social media platforms and out-woking each other on a moral high ground.
“Sex must be treated in manner that is offensive to public decency and morality, when judged by our national standards, and must be likely to pander to lascivious, prurient, sexually precocious minds, and appeal to or have the tendency to appeal to the “carnal side of human nature” for it to be obscene.” (Ranjit Udeshi judgement)
Now that we have dealt with profane and obscene? Does vulgar fall under obscene as well? In Samaresh Bose (supra), the Hon’ble court noted that while slang and unconventional words had been used in the book along with suggestions of sexual acts, there was no description of any overt act of sex. The words are vulgar and create a feeling of disgust and revulsion and may shock the reader but this does not necessarily amount to obscenity, which is the tendency to deprave and corrupt. This observation of the Hon’ble court strikes at the heart of the issue at hand. The words of Allahbadia are vulgar yes, but they do not fall under the ostensible definition of obscenity as far as the Apex Court is concerned. Here, we need to realize what is ostensibly vulgar to the ears or eyes of the common man cannot be deemed to be criminal unless it falls within the defined ambit of obscene by the Apex Court. Today, with our attention spans and tolerance constantly negotiating terms with our fragile egos and ethos, the courts are a better footing to determine a universally applicable standard for all.
The current standard that the courts follow is the “contemporary community standards” test which reflect the sensibilities as well as the tolerance levels of an average reasonable person. I believe, this is where we enter murky waters and the Allahbadia statements ironically falls prey to certain standards. With ever decreasing tolerance towards comedians and internet celebrities, today, the country urges for jail and not bail. However, the courts have consistently come to the rescue of these persecuted personalities. The courts have left the contemporary standards and mores open ended that are dependent more on context than on content.
Here, it is pertinent to reproduce a paragraph of the Apoorva Arora judgement;
“29. As stated above, this Court had watched a few episodes of the web series “College Romance” and the episode in question to decide the case more effectively and fairly. The intent behind watching the said web series was to analyze fairly as to whether the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the language used in the web series is “in language”, or is “language used by new generation in colleges”, or “the students in law colleges and the younger generation in colleges uses this language only”, is without merit or not.
30. This Court also wanted to test/examine the test of a common prudent man in practicality, acting itself as a common prudent person, so as to check as to whether such language, in fact, can be heard by a common prudent man without being embarrassed or finding it against decency or against the concept of decency…”
(emphasis added by author)
I have reproduced these paragraphs to really highlight one of the major issues that needs to be settled at the heart of this situation, the question of the new generation. Majority of the audience of Latent is Gen Z along with Millennials. Samay Raina was himself born at the end of millennia, in 1997 and is at the forefront of Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha comedy at the moment. The blow out success of Latent and his back-to-back sold-out shows all across the world lend testimony to his popularity among the mases today. His stature in comedy is attributed to his dark humor, often coupled with antithetical punchlines. Some of his jokes have also been controversial in the past, especially the one involving kids in a platform and a 2000 rupee note. Latent is his brain child and a lot of the show hinges upon the post-performance commentary and tête-à-tête the contestants have with the judges who use this opportunity to crack a few jokes. These segments can become a nightmare for people with lesser tolerance to edgy humor as some of the best acts of the show so far have centered around self-deprecating jokes by specially-abled contestants. It was during this segment that an over-charged Allahbadia landed or rather crash landed with his statements which were downright vulgar and profane but not obscene by legal standards. Allahbadia and Raina are the face and voice of the new generation. One is a star podcaster while one is a dream comic for a lot of youngsters or the new generation.
Mostly, the situation has gone out of hand due to the misplaced expectations of people and the consistent inability of the internet stars to fit into a constantly shifting standard of care and caution. Be it the AIB Roast fiasco which happened exactly a decade ago, the Logan Paul Japanese forest fiasco or the currently trending Mr. Beast Team Mate’s Grooming allegations; the internet’s obsession with knee jerk reactions and the automatic cancel culture is a persistent reminder of the Damocle’s Sword hanging over internet stars and their fleeting fanhood. Is this the pace of justice for the new generation? I believe not, as until now, the most commentaries and bashing is happening from people belonging to older generations who are not the primary target audience of the show. While the legality of the matter is well settled, what we really need to grasp here is the morality of the matter.
Is India ready for a show like Latent? Are internet stars grappling with a lack of PR training to be causing such faux pas even in 2025? Are we, as a nation, so fragile with our morality and sentiment that we demand a ban on a show because of a statement made by a guest who is otherwise a propagator of spirituality? From where I am standing, this situation is not about freedom of speech at all. It is a perfect distraction from our fragile egos and historical lack of tolerance towards what makes us uncomfortable.