‘College Romance’, Season 01, Episode 05 titled ‘Happily F****d Up’ [*5:24 to 6:40 and 25:28 to 25:46*] was published and broadcasted on YouTube on 06.09.2018. Court found excessive use of ‘swear words’, ‘profane language’ and ‘vulgar expletives’. The words used cannot even be reproduced here. Depiction does not connote filming alone but conveying by a medium, which in this case is spoken language.

University of Delhi has its own glorious history, majesty, respect and heritage. Just because a few people may be using such language, they cannot be allowed to corrupt minds which are ‘impressionable’ and be told this is a ‘new normal’.  

In case ‘College Romance’, Season 01, Episode 05 is still posted, appropriate remedial steps will be taken by YouTube. Court draws attention of Ministry of Information and Technology to these situations which are fast emerging on a daily basis.

– Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Apoorva Arora v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, [Crl.M.C. 2399/2020] decided on 06.03.2023.

_____

High Court found to be obscene, ‘foul, indecent and profane’ language. Nothing more. Obscenity relates to material that arouses sexual and lustful thoughts, which is not at all the effect of abusive language or profanities that have been employed. High Court has in fact moved away from requirements of obscenity under Section 67 of The Information Technology Act, 2000. High Court has incorrectly used the standard of ‘impressionable’ minds and has therefore erred in applying the test for obscenity correctly.

Furthermore, objectivity with which a judicial mind is expected to examine was completely lost when High Court evidently could not extricate itself from a Courtroom atmosphere.

– Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Apoorva Arora v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 5463-5464 of 2023] decided on 19.03.2024.

_____

This Court has on several occasions explained the meaning and tests to determine ‘what is obscene’. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 52 was followed by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 687 wherein it was held, ‘obscenity’ differs from country to country, depending on standards of morality of contemporary society. We may add, inter alia, place, customs, tradition and social background would also matter. 

Let’s be clear, legally, ‘obscenity’ is not synonymous with ‘vulgarity’, ‘abuse’ or ‘profanity’. Use of mere ‘swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives’, however distasteful or uncivil they may be, cannot be equated with ‘obscenity’. 

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Mani v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4516 of 2025] decided on 17.07.2026.