Abstract
Dark humor, which deals with taboo subjects and challenges societal norms, has been both a source of entertainment and controversy. While it can address important societal issues, it can also be offensive to some due to its subjective nature. The term “dark humor” was coined by André Breton in 1935, and it has evolved over time, especially in the digital age, with platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and OTT services allowing comedians to experiment with satirical content.
In India, Article 19(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech but also includes reasonable restrictions, balancing freedom with societal sensitivities. The paper discusses the tension between humor and offense, illustrated by incidents like the Munawar Faruqi case, where dark humor led to legal consequences. The study explores how online platforms navigate this issue, balancing free expression with accountability, and how the legal framework impacts the role of humor in society.
Keywords
Dark Humour, Free Speech, Indian Constitution, Article 19, Reasonable Restriction, Indian Society, Societal Sensitivity,
Introduction
Humor is a particularly demanding testing ground in this respect; while the right to humorous expression is vital to democratic societies, jokes can sometimes become a vehicle for unlawful speech, such as defamation or incitement to violence. This problem is further amplified today by the growing fragmentation of ‘irony-laden internet subcultures,’ where the difference between e.g. racist humor and satire of racism often becomes imperceptible
In India, the right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, allowing individuals to voice opinions and share ideas. However, this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) places reasonable restrictions to ensure that speech does not harm national sovereignty, security, public order, decency, or morality, among other factors, in order to maintain societal harmony.
Dark humour, a genre that uses satire and irony to address sensitive topics like death, tragedy, and social injustice, has historically played a role in political and social commentary. During colonial India, it was used to critique British rule, though this led to censorship. Today, dark humour continues to serve as a tool for questioning authority and expressing societal frustrations.
In a diverse country like India, the interpretation of humour is highly subjective. What may be funny to one group can be offensive to another, leading to controversy, particularly when dark humour touches on sensitive topics like religion. In some cases, such humour may cross legal boundaries, risking charges of defamation, obscenity, or incitement to violence. The lack of clear legal distinction between humour and hate speech often leads to subjective judgments, leaving creators vulnerable to legal action.
A decade later, we are witnessing history repeat itself with “India’s Got Latent.” The difference now is that the legal system has become even more assertive. FIRs have been filed under various sections, and the Supreme Court has stepped in, imposing restrictions on Allahbadia and possibly paving the way for full criminal proceedings. This issue has transcended public sentiment—it’s now about whether a nation that prides itself on democracy and free speech can genuinely tolerate controversial humour.
Research Methodology
The research methodology for this study on “Dark Humour in the Age of Free Speech” focuses on examining constitutional provisions, societal trends, and cultural implications. The approach is organized as follows:
Scope of the study
This research paper focuses on article 19(1)a , its role and its reasonable restrictions
The effect of dark humour or dark jokes on the indian society and its impact on our culture
Limitation
This study relies mostly on secondary data like news article and does not include interviews with the creators or audiences to provide their side of story
Review of literature
In India, the rise of dark humour on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter has exposed creators to both legal and societal consequences. Many comedians face public backlash and legal threats. One example is Vir Das, who, during an international show, made a controversial remark in his skit “The Two Indians,” stating, “I’m from the land India where we worship women during the day but gang rape them at night.” This statement sparked outrage, with accusations of insulting India on a global stage, leading to significant backlash and legal threats.
The case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India highlights the debate over the limits of free speech and the need for judicial intervention to determine acceptable restrictions. Similarly, the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India Emphasizes digital freedom in the age of social media, offering protection for individuals expressing critical views without spreading harmful content. Both cases demonstrate the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring a balance between free speech and societal concerns.
Restrictions are necessary to prevent hate speech, but overly broad application of these laws can stifle creativity and discourage critical thinking. During colonial India, the British criminalized content deemed offensive or contrary to their standards, often in the name of hate speech, which hindered free expression. Although dark humour addresses taboo topics, it plays an important role in raising awareness about societal issues.
Creators should aim for balance when using dark humour, ensuring it doesn’t cross into harmful territory, such as making fun of a person’s caste or religion under the guise of humour. These instances call for the application of reasonable restrictions. A growing concern today is the normalization of dark humour in popular culture, which can desensitize audiences to serious issues like caste discrimination and misogyny, complicating the debate around free speech.
Suggestion
Awareness
There should be awareness campaigns to educate and promote digital literacy to help the audience differentiate between humour and harmful speech
Platform responsibility
The social media platforms should take the responsibility of restricting harmful speech while not over censoring content but only restricting content which is inappropriate and harmful
Law
Article 19(2) should be applied in situations where there is clear imminent harm or the spread of hatred, but not in cases where individuals are simply expressing their opinions. In such instances, their right to free speech should be upheld.
Conclusion
Despite the significance of these issues, the approach to humor in free speech jurisprudence remains notably inconsistent, both across different contexts and within the same judicial system.
To address these challenges, interdisciplinary collaboration between practicing lawyers, legal scholars, and humor researchers from the humanities becomes increasingly essential. Additionally, comparative efforts that examine how humor is handled legally across different regions are equally important.
Comedians should exercise greater responsibility, suggesting that jokes that offend religious sentiments or address taboo subjects should be prohibited. These voices advocate for stricter censorship, increased content regulation, and harsher penalties for the perceived “misuse” of digital platforms.
In the digital age, where social media amplifies humour, creators of dark humour face both opportunities and risks, with viral platforms increasing engagement but also exposing them to backlash and legal action. To ensure dark humour remains a tool for societal critique, a balanced approach is needed. Legal reforms should protect satirical content while addressing ambiguities in laws like Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC. Public awareness and digital literacy initiatives can help promote tolerance and distinguish between intent and potential offense. Ultimately, dark humour in India reflects the challenges of a diverse democracy, and by fostering dialogue and respecting sensitivities, it can continue to enrich public discourse while preserving societal harmony.
Author
ASFA AMJAD
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW
[1] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR SCW 1989 AIR 2015 SC (CRIMINAL) 834
[2] K.A. Abbas v. Union of India,AIR 1971 SC 481
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 19cl. 1(a)
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 19(2)cl. 2
[5] Bruce Michael Boyd, “Film Censorship In India: A ‘Reasonable Restriction’ On Freedom Of Speech and Expression,”Vol. 14, No. 4, (April 4,2025) 14 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 501, 501–561
[6] Elise Kramer, “The Playful is Political: The Metapragmatics of Internet Rape-Joke Arguments,”Vol. 40, 40 Language in Society 137, 137–168
[7] Aryan Kishan, Outrage, FIRs, and Free Speech: The Fallout from ‘India’s Got Latent’,Cross sections conversations, (Mar. 3,2025) https://www.csconversations.in/outrage-firs-and-free-speech-the-fallout-from-indias-got-latent/