Ranveer Allahbadia. Photo: Special Arrangement
There is a moral panic over a show called India’s Got Latent. Much of the furore centres around some crude remarks made by a YouTuber, Ranveer Allahbadia. His remarks have been condemned by Chief Ministers, a Parliamentary Standing Committee, and even the Supreme Court.
On India’s Got Latent, which was conceptualised and hosted by comedian and YouTuber Samay Raina, judges attempt to critique the “latent” talents of aspiring performers. Dank humour defines the show. Both Mr. Allahbadia and Mr. Raina enjoy immense popularity as YouTubers, especially with young people. Mr. Raina is a rising sensation who shared the KBC stage with Amitabh Bachchan and Mr. Allahbadia was extolled by the Prime Minister himself as ‘Creator of the Year’. While many may say that their online reach is the reason behind the moral panic, the two YouTubers are mere pawns in the great game for control of our digital media.
Law on vulgarity
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s curt remark that Mr. Allahbadia has “a very dirty mind,” the law separates moral repugnancy from criminality. In Apoorva Arora v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2024), the Court quashed criminal prosecutions for foul language in an OTT show called College Romance. The Court demanded an objective test for obscenity, focusing on whether sexual or lustful thoughts were aroused and not on whether words were “decent”. The Court further explained that coarse language, however distasteful or improper, does not automatically become obscene.
Its ruling is directly relevant here: Mr. Allahbadia’s comments, at worst, constitute a risqué jest rather than actual obscenity. Yet fury and legal intimidation often eclipse constitutional principle.
The second legal provision which has been invoked against India’s Got Latent is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides the Indian government with the power to block access to a website, as revealed by Kanchan Gupta, a Senior Advisor, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Curiously, “decency and morality” do not fall under the grounds for blocking websites under Section 69A. This statutory limit was exposed as far back as 2010, when the government tried to block the pornographic website Savita Bhabhi. Legality, however, has not stood in the way of the Union government’s expanding appetite for censorship, as seen in the surge of blocking orders, which has been aided by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Blocking decisions remain shrouded in secrecy; courts typically avoid striking them down.
Question of regulation
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s push for a sweeping Broadcasting Bill gathered steam before the general elections and then returned in a form that placed online creators in the same bracket as traditional broadcasters. Earlier, there was a public outcry against provisions of the Bill. Now, thanks to the recent clamour for stronger censorship, the Bill has received momentum. The Parliamentary Standing Committee of Information Technology, headed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, has now urged the Ministry to propose new regulations and amendments. The recent controversy has different actors playing to a familiar script: a public uproar leads to new rules which arm the government with sweeping powers.
On January 15, 2021, Amazon Prime’s Tandav released, and was immediately accused of insulting religious sentiments. This led to criminal complaints, government intervention, and an apology from the creators, who cut supposedly offensive scenes. Yet multiple FIRs persisted, targeting actors, producers, and Amazon Prime’s India head. Amid calls for censorship, the government on February 25, 2021, introduced the Information Technology Rules. Part III now covers digital news media and OTT platforms, albeit under ambiguous jurisdiction. However, what is interesting is that to escape the clutches of criminal prosecution, OTT platforms have entered into a Faustian bargain. They now invite censorship powers of the Ministry to escape a visit to the police station or writ petitions before different High Courts. The price to pay is the discontinuation of any web series which, through its themes or dialogues, poses difficult questions to our society or political leadership. Hence, it should not come as a surprise if popular online creators, including those associated with India’s Got Latent, plead for clemency in the coming weeks by pleading for “regulation” on digital platforms such as YouTube.
This present moment in time is not simply an outcome of a single controversy. Nor is it just an example of rising online vulgarity fuelled by cheap data and ubiquitious teleconnectivity. As Yamini Aiyar and Neelanjan Sircar have argued, the Indian state has undergone a fundamental change in its political economy where technology has enabled direct benefit transfers as a form of tribal allegiance rather than a right guaranteed by the constitution. Calling it techno-patrimonialism, they state that it has advanced within a framework of the Prime Minister’s political appeal that relies on “a mix of cultural nationalism and welfarism populism”. Hence, it should come as no surprise that political parties, after competing on direct benefit transfers, are now advocating for digital censor boards. This may explain why the entire state and large sections of society have been spurred into action by a distasteful joke.
Apar Gupta, advocate and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation
Published – February 19, 2025 01:18 am IST
