Beer Biceps, Chhattisgarh HC’s marital rape decision and the making of a crime in Hindu majoritarian India

SOCIAL media influencer Ranveer Allahabadia’s question to a contestant on the online show ‘India’s Got Latent’ has attracted not only public outrage, but systematic response from various State authorities. By mid-February, the Maharashtra Cyber Department had filed a First Information Report (‘FIR’) against Allahbadia, comedian Samay Raina, and other artists from the show for allegedly creating obscene content. Soon after, sitting  chief ministers and a debate in a parliamentary standing committee pushed for constitutional restrictions on free speech, keeping in mind the malicious effects of such expression on Indian society. 

A closer reading of the political reaction and the state machinery’s behaviour towards Allahabadia’s case reveals certain peculiar tendencies of societies where majoritarian forces are potent. Society's popular impulses creep into the institutions of the State and come to be presented as legal truth. This form of proscription of free speech generally arises when the social majority is incapable of accepting certain forms of practice that have historically haunted the institution of the State. The state and its institutions have, from time to time, criminalised certain acts that do not conform to a majoritarian logic. However, within the same realm of law, the State has failed to criminalise other acts of violence which bear significance in preserving majoritarian institutions. 

Will the Supreme Court’s decision in Aveek Sarkar be a saving grace?

In India, several laws govern obscenity when it appears on electronic or digital platforms. Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita criminalises  the sale, display, or transmission of obscene material, including in electronic form, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act mirrors the BNS’s definition of obscenity, while prescribing a harsher punishment.