The Indian government’s recent decision to ban 25 OTT websites and apps over alleged obscene and pornographic content has ignited a fierce debate about censorship, creative freedom, and the definition of obscenity.
In a column for Mid-day, film critic Mayank Shekhar examined the controversy through a conversation with Shakespeare Tripathy — an “erotic star” and lead of the adult web series Utha Pathak. Shakespeare, who enjoys a sizable online following, finds himself in the crosshairs of the crackdown.
While acknowledging that most adult web series avoid depictions of violence, drugs, or coercion, he questioned why state censors equate consensual erotic content with criminality. Drawing comparisons with mainstream Bollywood, he pointed out that films like Animal depict disrespect towards women without facing similar bans, whereas erotic content exploring lust as a natural impulse is targeted.
The decision to block these apps was reportedly made by various ministries and industry groups, yet no public explanation or specific complaints were disclosed. In some cases, platforms with no prior controversies were removed without protest.
Legal experts note that while the government has the authority to block explicit sexual content, the absence of clear guidelines on what qualifies as “unacceptable” makes the move concerning. The deeper worry, however, is the growing public acceptance of censorship without critical questioning.
When the state begins banning material on moral or cultural grounds, it raises a key question: who gets to decide what is permissible? With the lines between offensive content and artistic adult expression increasingly blurred, the issue becomes less about taste and more about control.
As India’s digital content landscape evolves, this debate underscores a crucial point — in the struggle between regulation and expression, the conversation on who defines obscenity and who controls access must remain open.
