INTRODUCTION
“Comedy is a tragedy that happens to other people.” — Angela Carter.[1]
Comedy today is becoming less about the laughs and more about the liability.[2] What used to be a small, niche subculture in India has transformed into a massive industry,[3] Yet this growth is being met with a rising tide of legal intervention. The distinction between a comedic roast and a criminal offense is disappearing, turning the simple act of telling a joke into a potential legal tragedy.
This grim reality reached a breaking point in February 2025 with the controversy surrounding Samay Raina’s show, India’s Got Latent. After guest Ranveer Allahbadia made a sexually explicit joke, the backlash was swift: multiple FIRs were filed, and the episode was taken down from the internet.[4] This backlash leads to a legal dilemma: Does the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)[5] Protect offensive humour, or does the so-called “Right to Roast”, a conversational assertion of artistic license rather than a justiciable right, end where the “Right to Reputation” begins?
THE INDIA’S GOT LATENT CONTROVERSY
In February 2025, during an episode of the talent hunt show India’s Got Latent, popular podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia posed a hypothetical “would you rather” question to a contestant involving explicit sexual scenarios with parents. While intended as dark humour within the format of a “roast” or “shock comedy,” the clip went viral, drawing severe backlash from the National Commission for Women and the public.[6]
Consequently, FIRs were registered in Assam and Maharashtra, invoking charges of “promoting obscenity” and offensive language.[7] The episode was removed from YouTube, and Allahbadia issued a public apology. Unlike traditional defamation cases where a specific individual’s reputation is harmed, this case highlights how “obscenity” and “public morality”, restrictions under Article 19(2),[8] are often weaponised alongside defamation laws to curb comedic expression.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: DEFAMATION AND DISCLAIMERS
- The Statutory Reality: Section 356 BNS
The primary legal weapon against comedians remains criminal defamation. Under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), defamation is defined under Section 356 (replacing Section 499 of the IPC). The law penalises any “imputation” made with the intent to harm a person’s reputation.[9]
Crucially, Indian law does not explicitly recognise “humour” or “satire” as a valid exception to defamation.[10] The exceptions under Section 356 focus on “public good” and “good faith” regarding public conduct, but they do not cover “entertainment.”[11] Therefore, if a joke lowers a person’s character in the estimation of others, the comedian is technically liable, regardless of the venue or context.
- The Fallacy of the Disclaimer
It is standard practice for comedy shows to display disclaimers stating: “This video is for entertainment purposes only. No malice is intended.” Legally, however, such disclaimers hold little weight.
In criminal law, a disclaimer cannot override a statutory offence. If the content satisfies the ingredients of Section 356 BNS (Defamation) or Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (publishing obscene material),[12] A unilateral declaration of “innocence” by the creator is irrelevant. As decided in Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v State of Maharashtra,[13] The use of obscene language cannot be justified on the grounds of “poetic license” or artistic freedom if it violates community standards. Thus, a disclaimer is only a mitigating factor and does not provide for a legal shield.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION: SATIRE VS. DEFAMATION
The Indian judiciary has attempted to strike a balance, but the results have been inconsistent.
The Hasmukh Precedent (2020)
A beacon of hope for comedians is the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Ashutosh Dubey v Netflix, Inc.[14] In this case, a lawyer sought an injunction against the series Hasmukh for dialogue that allegedly defamed the legal profession. The Court dismissed the plea, noting that:
“The very essence of democracy lies in the fact that its creative artists are given the liberty to project the picture of the society/profession in any manner, including by using satire, to exaggerate the ills to an extent that it becomes a ridicule.”[15]
The Court relied on the “reasonable viewer” test, stating that stand-up comedy is an art form where exaggeration is understood. However, this protection is fragile. It applies primarily to civil suits and generalisations.[16] When a comedian targets a specific individual or crosses into “obscenity” (as alleged in the Allahbadia case), the protection of Ashutosh Dubey often crumbles before criminal provisions.
The “Heckler’s Veto”
Despite pro-speech rulings, the procedural reality often acts as punishment. In Munawar Faruqui v State of Madhya Pradesh,[17] The comedian was denied bail by lower courts for jokes he allegedly was going to make, effectively validating the “heckler’s veto”, where the threat of public disorder silences speech. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s holding in S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjivan Ram,[18] which stated that freedom of speech cannot be suppressed on account of a threat of demonstration or violence.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: THE US VS. INDIA
The vulnerability of Indian comedians is best understood when contrasted with that of the United States.
- The “Actual Malice” Standard
In the United States, the First Amendment provides a wide protection for satire. This was cemented in the landmark case of Hustler Magazine v Falwell (1988),[19] where the Supreme Court protected a parody depicting a conservative minister in a drunken, incestuous encounter. The Court reasoned that because the piece was so clearly outrageous, no ‘reasonable person’ would accept it as fact. The plaintiff had to prove “actual malice”, that the comedian knew the statement was false. This standard is nearly impossible to meet in the context of parody, which is openly fictional by design.
- The “Thick Skin” Doctrine in India
India lacks a codified “parody defense.”[20] While courts occasionally advise public figures to have “thick skins,” this is a judicial rhetoric rather than a binding doctrine. In Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016),[21] The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, emphasising that the “Right to Reputation” under Article 21 is a fundamental facet of human dignity that balances Free Speech. Consequently, Indian courts place a higher value on “dignity” than the US courts place on “satire.”
CONCLUSION
India’s Got Latent controversy of 2025 illustrates that what might be called a “right to roast” in India remains precarious and weakly protected, operating within the narrow and uncertain limits of existing criminal and platform regulation.
In practice, the space for roast comedy is shaped by the broadly-worded offence of criminal defamation in Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and by takedown and blocking powers under the Information Technology Act and its rules, which together give authorities wide discretion over online roast content. A disclaimer that content is “for entertainment only” may help provide context, but it does not by itself create any legal immunity from defamation, obscenity, or IT-law liability.
To meaningfully protect this art form, one plausible reform would be a specific statutory exception or defence for satire within the BNS that is analogous in spirit to “fair dealing” in copyright law.[22], so that clearly satirical speech enjoys explicit legislative protection. Until then, the line between a punchline and a prison sentence remains disturbingly thin, often turning less on clear statutory safeguards for satire and more on the tolerance of audiences, complainants, platforms, and authorities.
Author(s)Name: Purvi S Jain (Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University)
References
[1] Carter A, Wise Children (Chatto & Windus 1991)
[2] Devyani Suryawanshi, ‘Laughter or Liability: A Legal Analysis of Defamation, Sedition, and Vulgarity in Stand-Up Comedy and Social Media Influencers Versus the Right to Free Speech in India’ (Record Of Law, 27 October 2025) <https://recordoflaw.in/laughter-or-liability-a-legal-analysis-of-defamation-sedition-and-vulgarity-in-stand-up-comedy-and-social-media-influencers-versus-the-right-to-free-speech-in-india/ > accessed 7 December 2025
[3] R Bhargava and S Singhal, ‘Stand-Up: The “Comic” Public Sphere in India’ (2023) 17 International Journal of Communication
[4] ‘India’s Got Latent Controversy: Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahbadia Appear Before…’ (The Times of India, 15 April 2025) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/indias-got-latent-controversy-samay-raina-and-ranveer-allahbadia-appear-before-maharashtra-cyber-cell-amid-the-ongoing-issue/articleshow/120329058.cms> accessed 5 December 2025
[5] Constitution of India art 19(1)(a)
[6] ‘All About “India’s Got Latent”, Where Ranveer Allahbadia Made Vulgar Comments’ (NDTV, 9 February 2025) <https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/all-about-india-039-s-got-latent-where-ranveer-allahbadia-made-vulgar-comments-7678726> accessed 7 December 2025
[7] Priya Pareek, ‘Why Ranveer Allahbadia, Samay Raina Have Got…’ (India Today, 11 February 2025) <https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ranveer-allahbadia-samay-raina-indias-got-latent-controversy-explained-2678116-2025-02-11> accessed 6 December 2025
[8] Constitution of India art 19(2)
[9] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 356
[10] Imran Khan, ‘The Law of Defamation: Deviance and Manipulation’ (2025) 8(4) International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 1601
[11] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, ss 356 Exceptions 1–9
[12] Information Technology Act 2000, s 67
[13] Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 1
[14] Ashutosh Dubey v Netflix, Inc [2020] SCC OnLine Del 1877
[15]Ashutosh Dubey v Netflix, Inc [2020] SCC OnLine Del 1877 [26]
[16] Munawar Faruqui v State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 3 SCC 712
[17] ibid
[18] S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574
[19] Hustler Magazine v Falwell (1988) 485 US 46
[20] Civic Chandran v Ammini Amma (1996) 16 PTC 329 (Kerala High Court)
[21] Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
[22] Copyright Act 1957, s 52
