Question

Fact pattern: An influencer uses explicit sexual language on a live episode and receives FIRs across multiple States. Is the speech protected? Apply the three-part test (law, legitimate aim, proportionality). Compare College Romance (quash) vs Ranveer Allahbadia (SC critical).

Hint:

Always apply: (1) Law → IT Act s.67 (2) Aim → decency/morality (19(2)) (3) Proportionality → vulgar ≠ obscene College Romance = liberal → protects speech Ranveer = cautious → influencers have higher responsibility

Answer 1

Whether explicit sexual speech online is protected depends on applying the three-part proportionality test under Article 19(1)(a)–19(2). The Supreme Court now requires: \[ (1) legality, (2) legitimate aim, (3) proportionality. \] We analyse each:
1. Legality – Is there a “law” restricting speech?
Yes. Potential statutory provisions include:

IT Act Section 67 – obscene online content.
BNS equivalents of IPC 292/294 – obscenity in public domain.
Other complaints may invoke 509 BNS (insulting modesty), though usually improperly.
Thus, the restriction is “prescribed by law.”
But the key question becomes: \[ Does the conduct satisfy the “obscenity test”? \] Courts apply:

“community standards test,”
“overall message test,”
“artistic / comedic context,”
“intent and mode of communication.”
2. Legitimate Aim – Does the restriction protect decency/morality? Yes. Sexualised speech online may trigger: \[ decency \ & morality (Art. 19(2)). \] But “morality” must be constitutional morality, not subjective moral disapproval.
3. Proportionality – Is criminal prosecution a proportionate response?
This is where the outcome becomes nuanced.
Compare two leading cases: ---
(A) College Romance Case (2023) – Delhi High Court quashed prosecution
Facts: Web series contained explicit sexual dialogues.
Held:

Obscenity requires a tendency to “deprave and corrupt.”
Mere vulgarity or explicit slang = not automatically obscene.
Content was comedic, intended for mature audiences, behind an age-gate.
Prosecution was disproportionate and chilled artistic expression.
Thus: \[ \boxed{Sexual language alone is not sufficient to prosecute unless it crosses the obscenity threshold.} \] --
- (B) Ranveer Allahbadia (BeerBiceps) – SC expressed concern
Supreme Court (2024) held:

Influencers with large public reach owe a higher responsibility.
Digital speech has amplified societal effects.
Courts should avoid blanket quashing; deeper factual inquiry needed.
Thus: \[ \boxed{SC is more cautious about dismissing FIRs when the influencer has mass impact + widespread dissemination.} \] ---
APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT FACTS
Influencer uses explicit language on a live stream.
Factors favouring speech protection:

Context may be comedic / satirical / adult-oriented → College Romance analogy.
Consent of viewers (they voluntarily joined the live).
No sexual exploitation.
No use of minors, no non-consensual display, no sexual act.
Art. 19(1)(a) protects strong, vulgar, or uncomfortable speech.
Factors against the influencer (Ranveer factors):

Mass audience → societal impact.
Live content → minors may be present.
Community standards may be breached if language is extremely graphic.
Multiplicity of FIRs indicates public harm perception.
Proportionality Balance:
Criminal prosecution should be quashed if: \[ speech is vulgar but not obscene. \] If sexual language:

lacks prurient intent,
is artistic/comedic,
does not involve minors,
does not intend corruption of morals,
then it fails the “obscenity threshold,” meaning prosecution is disproportionate. But if the explicit content is:

graphic,
detailed sexual instructions,
directed at minors or general public,
with no artistic or comedic purpose,
then FIRs may survive scrutiny per the Ranveer caution.
Final Conclusion \[ \boxed{The speech is likely protected if merely vulgar; not protected if crossing the obscenity threshold or causing harm.} \] College Romance → supports quashing. Ranveer → warns against blanket quashing in mass-audience cases.