When does a joke cross the line into obscenity? Who determines the boundaries between free expression and societal norms? In a nation as diverse as India, how do we reconcile the right to provoke thought with the risk of offending sensibilities?
ALSO READ: Opinion | New Lingos Of Darrang And Udalguri Women Farmers
The recent controversy surrounding YouTubers Ranveer Allahbadia and Samay Raina has reignited a fraught debate in India: where does free speech end and obscenity begin? The firestorm began when Allahbadia, a podcaster celebrated for his motivational content, posed a crude hypothetical question on Raina’s comedy show India’s Got Latent. The remark, intended as dark humour, spiralled into a national scandal, triggering police complaints, parliamentary discussions, and a moral panic that exposed the fragility of India’s relationship with provocative expression.
At its core, this incident is not merely about a tasteless joke. It is a litmus test for how a society navigates the collision between constitutional freedoms and cultural sensitivities. India’s legal framework, rooted in colonial-era morality clauses, grapples with modern digital content. Sections 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, which criminalise “obscenity,” are vague by design, leaving room for subjective interpretation. The law defines obscenity as material that depraves and corrupts or appeals to prurient interest, a standard inherited from British jurisprudence but increasingly at odds with global shifts toward contextual analysis. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in the College Romance case, which distinguished between vulgarity and legally actionable obscenity, offered a glimmer of nuance. The court noted that expletives might evoke disgust but not necessarily lust, a precedent that could shield Allahbadia and Raina from conviction. Yet, the mere existence of such ambiguity empowers authorities to weaponised these laws, as seen in the rapid filing of FIRs across Assam and Maharashtra, often under political pressure.
This legal quagmire mirrors historical tensions. The trials of Saadat Hasan Manto, the Urdu writer prosecuted repeatedly under British India’s obscenity laws for his stories remind us that moral outrage has long been a tool to suppress uncomfortable truths. Manto’s work, now celebrated for its unflinching portrayal of partition violence, was deemed “filthy” in its time—a label now haunting digital creators. Like Manto, Allahbadia and Raina stand accused of crossing invisible lines, their content judged not by intent but by the discomfort it provokes.
The backlash against India’s Got Latent also reveals a deeper societal schism. On one side are advocates of artistic freedom, who argue that dark comedy—a genre thriving globally— serves as a mirror to hypocrisy and taboo. Shows like South Park in the U.S. or Fleabag in the U.K. routinely tackle taboo subjects with irreverence, protected by legal frameworks that prioritise intent over offense. In India, however, the line between satire and sacrilege remains perilously thin. Comedians like Munawar Faruqui and Kunal Kamra have faced similar crackdowns, their jokes branded as threats to public order rather than critiques of power. The irony is stark: while politicians and elected representatives accused of delivering hate speeches—escape scrutiny, comedians bear the brunt of state machinery.
This selective enforcement underscores a troubling double standard. The same week Allahbadia’s joke dominated headlines, a report by the India Hate Lab documented a 74% surge in hate speech targeting minorities, largely ignored by media and lawmakers. The disparity raises questions: why does a crude joke warrant parliamentary debate, while systemic bigotry thrives unchecked? The answer lies in the performative nature of India’s moral policing. By targeting influencers, the state projects an image of cultural guardianship, diverting attention from structural issues like communal violence or censorship of dissent. Allahbadia, ironically lauded as “Disruptor of the Year” by Prime Minister Modi in 2024, became a convenient scapegoat in this theatre of virtue.
Yet, the outcry also reflects genuine societal fissures. India’s digital revolution has democratised content creation, but not all audiences are prepared for the raw, unfiltered humour flourishing online. For older generations steeped in tradition, shows like India’s Got Latent represent a cultural invasion, a threat to the sanctity of family and respect for elders. Younger viewers, conversely, see these platforms as spaces to challenge dogma; a generational clash amplified by algorithms that prioritise engagement over ethics.
The path forward is fraught. Legislating humour is a fool’s errand; comedy, by nature, thrives on pushing boundaries. Yet, the absence of boundaries risks normalising harm. The solution may lie in fostering a culture of critical consumption where audiences, not the state, decide what to watch. Platforms must also step up, implementing robust age-gating and content warnings to shield minors without stifling creativity.
As the dust settles, the question lingers: who gets to draw the line? Is it the state, entrusted with preserving order but prone to overreach? The courts, tasked with balancing rights but shackled by vague statutes? Or society itself, through dialogue and dissent? The Allahbadia Raina saga offers no easy answers, but it compels us to confront the contradictions of a democracy struggling to reconcile liberty with legacy. In the end, the line is not static—it shifts with every joke told, every FIR filed, and every court verdict that inches us toward clarity or chaos.
(All views and opinions expressed are authors own)
