Humour and perversity: On regulatory measures to prevent vulgarity
With enough laws to deal with obscenity, new regulations may be superfluous
In suggesting that the Government should come with regulatory measures to prevent vulgarity or perversity in the name of humour being aired, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of petitions by YouTubers caught in a criminal case over alleged obscenity in a digital programme. The Court has sounded the right note by calling for a discussion among stakeholders on regulations that would not impinge on the freedom of speech and expression and will be within the framework of “reasonable restrictions” permitted in the Constitution. However, such regulations may be superfluous, as existing laws provide for dealing with possible obscenity or vulgarity in electronic and digital content. That those associated with the controversial programme, ‘India’s Got Latent’, are facing FIRs and have sought protection from arrests show that the present regulations may be sufficient. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), display of content in electronic form shall be deemed to be obscene, “if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest”, and is a punishable offence. Similar penal provisions are available in the IT Act. The Programme Code under the Cable Television Network Rules prohibits programmes that offend decency, among other things. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provide for age-based classification and a three-tier system of grievance redress, under which users could approach the platform, a self-regulatory body and a government inter-departmental committee.
The debate between ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ humour is age-old, but the distinction is well-understood. It is only in the context of public outrage over specific instances of obscenity or vulgarity that voices are raised about the need to maintain decency and morality. In this case, the folly of the participants in making sexually perverse comments is matched by the zeal of the complainants and the police, mainly because of the content being leaked outside a paying audience. The participants may have thus rendered themselves vulnerable to prosecution, but a mature society should consider whether anyone should go to prison for such a verbal offence. The tendency to get the police to file FIRs wherever someone complains is also to be deprecated. The Internet’s universal reach should not become an excuse to confer universal jurisdiction. This often takes the case to the Court, as those named in such FIRs want multiple cases to be clubbed, leading to attention and a widening of the debate. An extreme case such as this does evoke extreme reactions, but law enforcement and legal institutions should not be overzealous in their response.
