Facts:

• The Appellants were the actors, casting directors, scriptwriters, creators, and media companies involved in the hosting of the web series “College Romance”.
• The Respondent was the State of NCT of Delhi, represented by a complainant who alleged that the web series contained obscene and sexually explicit material.
• A complaint alleged that Season 1, Episode 5 of 'College Romance' contained vulgar and obscene language, constituting offences under:
  Indian Penal Code, 1806 - Section 292, 294, and 509 (Hereinafter referred as IPC)
  Information Technology Act - Sections 67 and 67A (Hereinafter referred to as IT Act)
  Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 - Sections 2(c) and 3 of the
• On 13.03.2019, the complainant filed an FIR before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM). The Investigating Officer's report on 09.04.2019 found no cognizable offence or obscenity in the content.
• On 17.09.2019, the ACMM ordered an FIR against the appellants under Sections 292, 294 IPC and 67, 67A IT Act, finding the language used to be prima facie obscene.
• The Appellants challenged the ACMM's order with a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, where the order was modified.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, the Appellants had raised a petition before the High Court for quashing the FIR on 06.03.2023, but it was dismissed. This led to the registration of the FIR on 16.04.2023.
• Hence, the present appeal was raised.
  

Background:

Additional Session Judge’s Holding

• Aggrieved by the order of ACMM, the Appellants filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge.
• The Additional Sessions Judge partially modified the ACMM's order, directing FIR registration only under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act.
• The decision of the Additional Session Judge was based on the court's ruling in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 2 SCC 18.
  

High Court’s Holding

• The Appellants filed the petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court to quash the orders, but it was dismissed on 06.03.2023 and the direction to register an FIR under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act against the Appellants was given.
• The High Court applied the 'community standard test' laid down in Aveek Sarkar vs State of West Bengal (2014) 4 SCC 257, and other High Court decisions to determine obscenity.
• The High Court stated that the language of the episode was excessively vulgar and sexually explicit, thereby violating Indian standards of civility and morality.
• It emphasised that such content, especially without appropriate disclaimers, could corrupt impressionable minds, including children. The language used in the episode isn't protected by freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
• The content curator and intermediaries violated the IT Rules 2021 by misclassifying the content and failing to provide warnings about profanities. (Paragraph 3-5)
  

Supreme Court:

• Appellants filed the present appeal challenging the dismissal of their petition and the FIR under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act.
  

Main issue:

1. Whether the material is ‘obscene’ under section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000?
2. Whether the material is ‘sexually explicit’ for the purpose of Section 67A of the IT Act?