In the ever-evolving landscape of comedy and digital content, India finds itself at a crossroads where artistic expression is increasingly stifled under the garb of moral policing. The recent controversy surrounding comedian Samay Raina and others facing legal action for their content is a glaring example of how the creative liberties of comedians are being curtailed. The invocation of legal provisions meant to regulate obscenity and indecency against comedic expression raises serious concerns about the misuse of law to silence free speech.

A recent Supreme Court judgment (Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi) quashed FIRs filed against the creators of the web series College Romance, setting a crucial precedent for freedom of speech and expression. The apex court ruled that vulgarity does not equate to obscenity and that the mere use of profanities and slang cannot be deemed criminal unless it crosses the threshold of corrupting public morality as defined by law. This ruling is particularly relevant to the ongoing debate about the limitations imposed on comedians and online content creators.

Vulgarity is Not a Crime

One of the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s verdict is the clear distinction between vulgarity and legally actionable obscenity. The judgment referenced various precedents, emphasizing that obscenity must be assessed through the community standards test rather than personal moral sensibilities. The Court noted that while the language used in College Romance might be profane and even distasteful to some, it did not arouse prurient interest or corrupt impressionable minds. The same principle applies to comedians who employ dark humor and coarse language as part of their craft.

Indian comedians often use satire and explicit language to highlight societal issues, question stereotypes, and challenge conventional wisdom. Humor that may seem vulgar to some is an essential part of artistic expression. Criminalizing such content sets a dangerous precedent that discourages creativity and forces artists to self-censor out of fear of legal repercussions.

Freedom of Speech and the Threat of Moral Policing

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and expression, a cornerstone of democracy. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which include public morality and decency. The Supreme Court, in multiple cases, has held that material should only be deemed obscene if it crosses the threshold of depraving or corrupting the minds of viewers. The College Romance ruling reaffirmed that the usage of profanities does not, in itself, qualify as an offense under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Moral policing of comedy and satire is not just an attack on individual comedians but a broader threat to free speech. If content creators are forced to conform to arbitrary standards of morality, the essence of humor and artistic critique will be lost. The law should protect against actual harm rather than cater to the sensitivities of a vocal minority that seeks to dictate the boundaries of acceptable speech.

Judicial Precedents That Uphold Artistic Freedom

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld freedom of speech in creative fields. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against the actress for making statements on premarital sex, ruling that mere reference to sex is not obscene. Similarly, in Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, the Court upheld the artistic merit of the controversial film Bandit Queen, stating that shocking content does not automatically become obscene if it serves a greater purpose.

Applying these precedents to comedy, it becomes evident that criminalizing jokes and satire that contain vulgarity is an infringement on artistic freedom. Comedians, much like filmmakers and writers, have the right to push boundaries and provoke thought through humor.

Conclusion

However, while community standards must be considered, to what extent should they dictate artistic expression? If content is published exclusively on a members-only platform—where viewers have the choice to opt out—can it still be criminalized?

The distinction between moral values and artistic rights is a fine line. Comedians like Samay Raina must exercise caution when pushing boundaries, especially when using vulgar language or dark humor. India, a land rich in culture, must also recognize that art is a reflection of society. While content should respect cultural values, it should not be excessively restricted in the name of morality. Jokes and comedic performances should be permissible as long as they do not incite harm or deliberately hurt the sentiments of any community.

It is worth noting that India has long been home to Kamasutra, an ancient text that openly explores sexuality, desire, and human relationships in great depth. It is widely published, studied, and even celebrated as part of the nation’s heritage. Yet, in stark contrast, modern comedic expressions that reference sex are frequently met with legal action and censorship. This paradox highlights the selective application of moral standards where historical and literary discussions on sexuality are accepted, but contemporary humor on the same subject is criminalized.

If an ancient text advocating open discussions about sex is permissible, then logically, modern artistic expressions using humor to address sexuality should not be treated as criminal acts. Judicial precedents demonstrate that Indian courts have been open to the evolving needs of society, often supporting artists' right to create without fear of legal repercussions. This contradiction underscores the urgent need for a rational and consistent approach to free speech, artistic freedom, and the destigmatization of discussions around sexuality.

The Supreme Court’s quashing of FIRs against College Romance should serve as a guiding principle in addressing the current wave of legal actions against comedians. Courts must distinguish between content that genuinely violates legal provisions and content that merely offends subjective moral sensibilities. As India advances in the digital age, it must recognize that humor no matter how dark or explicit serves as a crucial tool for social commentary and should not be criminalized.

Rather than weaponizing legal provisions against artists, a balanced approach is needed one that upholds free speech while addressing genuine cases of harm. Until such clarity is established, comedians like Samay Raina should not have to defend their craft in courtrooms.