By: Akankshya Mohanty
Collage Name: Kiit School of Law
Abstract
In a world full of uncertain things, humour something that always constant. Humour has a lots of form and it is subjective one thing can be funny for a group of people and in the same time that thing can be offensive as well this is where dark humour comes into picture. Dark humour or black humour is a style of comedy where people make jokes on subject which is view as taboo in society. The term “dark humour” was 1st coined by the Surrealist theorist André Breton in his 1935 book “Anthologie de humour noir” (“Anthology of Black Humour”).
On one hand, dark humour is entertaining as it challenges societal norms and talks about the taboo subject sometimes. It also addresses the societal issues such as child marriage dowry. But on the other hand, it can be offensive for some people. As humour is subjective and it depends on the eyes of the beholder. For example, a joke about corruption or politics might spark laughter in one room or it could lead to a fire in another room.
In India, Article 19(a) of Indian Constitution gives the freedom of speech and expression. In the same article, clause 2 further explains this particular right and it also has some reasonable restriction. In the reasonable restriction.
In the digital age where the conversation has shifted from the traditional way of writing letters to chatting and in the rise of entertainment platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, or OTT service has empowered comedians to experiment with this edgy satirical content. Shows such as comicstaan or stand-up performance by prominent artists frequently face issues relating to dark humour. For example, the case of Munawar Faruqi in which he made a joke which hurt the sentiment of certain religious group and due to which he faced charges and he had to go to jail.
This research paper explores the constitutional and societal dimension of dark humour in the age of free speech. It examines how the online platform takes responsibility and balances the right to free speech. By analysing the case study and legal framework, these people aim to navigate between the relationship of humour, freedom, and accountability in India.
Keywords
Dark Humour, Free Speech, Indian Constitution, Article 19, Reasonable Restriction, Indian Society, Societal Sensitivity,
Introduction
India is a democratic country where every citizen has freedom of speech and expression which has been laid down in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which guarantees the citizen of India for the freedom of speech and expression. This is the fundamental right which enables individuals to voice their opinions, share ideas without facing any interference.
Although it is a fundamental right, but it is not an absolute right. Article 19(2) has laid down the reasonable restriction where it has been mentioned that the freedom of speech and expression shall not hampers the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or insentiment to an offence. These restrictions are aimed to create a balance and harmony in society where the society could function peacefully.
Dark humour is a genre of comedy where, by using satire and irony, people address sensitive or taboo subjects such as death, tragedy, social injustice, unlike the conventional humour which seeks to entertain people without any discomfort. Historically, dark humour played a very vital role addressing public distress towards the political issue or certain social commentary or towards certain societal issue. In colonial India, satire plays a very important role in the form of cartoon and writing where it was used to mock the British regime and which later led to censorship by the British. Today, it still continues to serve as a medium to question the authority and to reflect and reflecting societal frustration.
In diverse country like India interpretation of humour make it highly subjective. Jokes that resonate with one group may offend another group, which would lead to controversy or clashes. For instance, dark humour on religious practice or religious stereotypes often faces severe backlash.
The dark humour of it crosses boundaries of what is legally purposeful under Indian law, contained perceived as offensive, may invite the charges of defamation, obscenity, or even incitement to violence.The lack of clear legal distinction between humorous attire and hate speech often results in subjective judgment, leaving creators vulnerable to legal action.
Research Methodology
The research methodology in this study on “Dark humour in the age of free speech” focuses on analysing constitutional provision, legal precedent, societal trend, and cultural implication. The methodology is structured as follows
Scope of the study
The research focus on Indian legal and social standards it analyses the implication of these dark humour in a culturally diverse country like India the study limits to
The role of article 19(1)(a) which is freedom of speech and article 19(2) which is reasonable restriction
Implication of dark joke in society
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
The discussion of dark humour and freedom of speech has been a subject of debate in legal and cultural contexts. This review examines the existing literature on this particular topic and how the constitutional framework of free speech in India and societal impact of humour pushes the boundaries.
Role of Humour in well being
Humour plays a very important role when it comes to a person’s well-being. Scholars like John Morell in 2006 explored the concept of humour as a coping mechanism in his book, Humour, a very short introduction. He argues that humour can help individuals deal with difficulties which provide them psychological relief. Dark humour is also a type of humour that often deals with taboo subjects and operates on the boundary of societal acceptance. The question raises about the limits and impact on different audiences. A lot of people use dark humour as a coping mechanism, and it has been observed via the stand-up comedy and sometimes in certain animated shows such as Havoc and Morty, where it provides an escape from the harsh reality of modern life, and it critiques the societal norm and challenges the institution with irony.
Research has shown that how different styles of humour, particularly being the dark one, affect physiological state such as depression, anxiety, and stress in individuals. The study categorized humour into Benign and Dark Humour. It finds that Benign human is associated with lower level of emotional distress while Dark Humour style correlate positively with higher level of depression, anxiety, and stress.
The research was conducted with a sample of Italian participants, which highlights the need of further study across different cultures to understand how humour is perceived and its psychological impact on various societal contexts.
Dark Humour in India: Virality and Legal Challenges
Sometimes these dark jokes can went overboard such as in the paper of Kamar’s article provided the valuable insight into the complexity of humour particularly dark humour and its implication. In his paper he has highlighted the issue of rape jokes. He has pointed out that how rape jokes are considered a nature of humour in public discourse, particularly in online platform. This also reflects a debate between what constitutes as acceptable and what is the boundaries in the name of free speech. Rape jokes are not merely humour, but also about identity and societal sentiment. Particularly, in these debates, asserts the right to speak on certain issues.
In India, the virality of dark humour on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter has increased and its impact also exposed creators to legal and societal repercussions. Due to which lots of comedians face challenges and public scrutiny. Lots of Indian stand-up comedians have been faced with public backlash and legal threat. For example, the case of Vir das, in which during one of his international shows, while he was doing a skit called as The Two Indian, where he said a line that “I’m from the land India where we worship women during the day but gang rape them at night”. This particular line, did not sit well with people they claimed that he was insulting India in a global stage due to which he received lots of backlash, even legal threats as well.
Balancing Free Speech and Censorship of Taboo Topics
Restrictions are necessary to prevent hate speech and overboard application of these laws could stiff creativity and discourage critical thinking. During the colonial India, whenever anyone tries to speak against the British or something which the British has seen is not appropriate, it is not even meeting their standards, they used to criminalize those articles in the name of hate speech. Criminalization of this kind of creativity could lead to hamper of freedom of speech of that particular individual. Even though dark humans are humans on taboo subjects, but it also plays a very vital role to raise awareness about those subject and societal problems as well. The paper, the article Decriminalizing Creative Offense by Srinivas Bura, argues that creative work, even if offensive, should be protected under free speech, while only deliberate incitement or hatred should be criminalized.
The issue of stopping creative freedom has been still continued, such as censorship of movies which questions the society. Majority of movies which talk about taboo subject get censored in the name of moral policing. The movie Lipstick by Burkha, which talks about how females are treated in society, and it also talks about female sexuality, which is not well versed with the Indian society. And in that movie they faced censorship, because according to censorship board it was too vulgar, because it talks about female sexuality.
Judicial Interpretation of Free Speech and Humour
In these kinds of situations, jurisdictions play a very crucial role in balancing the constitutional freedom and societal interest. For example, in the case of K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, which underscores the debate over the limit of freedom of speech and the necessity of judicial intervention to ensure it is the reasonable acceptance of the restrictions. Also the case, the landmark case of Shreya Sinhal v. Union of India, also highlights the digital freedom in the age of social media and which could be used in the context of dark humour and it could help to protect those who are speaking critically but not spreading In these kinds of situations, jurisdictions play a very crucial role in balancing the constitutional freedom and societal interest. Also the case of Tata Circuit Ltd vs Greenpeace International. The court upheld the right of satirical commentary, even when it directed at a corporate giant. Therefore, de-enforcing the role of humour could help creators to express themselves and their views.
The Need for Responsible Dark Humour
While creators should create a balance, when it comes to dark humour, in the name of dark humour, if they are body shielding someone, making fun of a person’s caste, religion, it shall not be tolerated in the name of free speech. These are the times when reasonable restrictions should be applied on them. Nowadays, the issue is the normalization of dark humour in popular culture, which can decentralize audiences to serious issues like caste discrimination and misogyny, complicating the discourse around free speech.
Suggestion
Law and older
Article 19(2) shall be ensured in such a way that it applies in a case where there is a clear imminent harm or spread of hatred has been used, but not where people are merely making any comment, and their right of free speech shall be protected.
If any creator face with backlash, the police shall do a proper investigation and provide proper protection to the individual on whom the case has been made. Instead of saying them to cancel the show or delete the content without doing a proper investigation.
If any creator face with backlash, the police shall do a proper investigation and provide proper protection to the individual on whom the case has been made.
Awareness and education
There should be awareness campaign and people should get educated on the role of satire and humour to reduce unnecessary offence or outrage. There should be promotion of digital literacy to help the audience to differentiate the humour which is intended for critique and harmful speech.
Creator and platform accountability
While creators should create a balance, when it comes to dark humour, in the name of dark humour, if they are body shielding someone, making fun of a person’s caste, religion, it shall not be tolerated in the name of free speech. These are the times when reasonable restrictions should be applied on them. Nowadays, the issue is the normalization of dark humour in popular culture, which can decentralize audiences to serious issues like caste discrimination and misogyny, complicating the discourse around free speech.
Creators’ responsibility is creators should engage to balance provocation with sensitivity, especially while addressing vulnerable groups. And there should be a self-regulation among the comedians and content creators through industries as a code of conduct.
The social media platform should adapt a balanced and transparent object and moderate policy for humour and they shall not over-censor the satire content, but if that content is hateful in nature, then it shall be removed.
The algorithm need to modify, and those people who spread hate, who spread misogyny, caste discrimination, in the name of dark humour, shall be blocked to protect the interest of people and to make social media a safe space for everyone.
Conclusion
The interplay between dark humour and free speech in India represents a delicate balance between protecting creative expression and respecting societal sensitivities. As a form of satire, dark humour has the potential to challenge societal norms, critique injustices, and spark critical conversations. However, its provocative nature often tests the boundaries of constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(a), bringing it into conflict with the reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2).
Judicial precedents like Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) and Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International (2011) highlight the judiciary’s pivotal role in safeguarding creative freedom while addressing genuine threats to public order, morality, and decency. These cases emphasize the importance of intent and context when interpreting potentially offensive content, offering valuable insights for navigating the challenges posed by dark humour.
In the digital age, where humour is amplified by social media, dark humour creators face unprecedented opportunities and risks. The viral nature of online platforms fosters engagement but also subjects creators to heightened scrutiny, backlash, and, at times, legal action. This necessitates a clearer distinction between humour that provokes thought and content that incites harm.
To ensure that dark humour thrives as a tool for societal critique, it is crucial to adopt a balanced approach. Legal reforms must provide explicit protections for satirical and humorous content while addressing ambiguities in laws like Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC. Public awareness campaigns and digital literacy initiatives can further promote a culture of tolerance, helping audiences differentiate between humour’s intent and its potential to offend.
Ultimately, dark humour in India reflects the vibrancy and challenges of a diverse democracy. By fostering dialogue, respecting sensitivities, and safeguarding constitutional rights, it is possible to ensure that dark humour continues to enrich public discourse without undermining societal harmony.
References/Bibliography
Article 19(1)(a),Article19(2) of Constitution of India
Ajay Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors, AIR 2015 DELHI 92
Shreya singhal v. Union of india,2015 AIR SCW 1989 AIR 2015 SC (CRIMINAL) 834
Tata Sons Limited vs Greenpeace International & Anr on 28 January, 2011
Dionigi A., Duradoni M., Vagnoli L., “Understanding the Association Between Humor and Emotional Distress: The Role of Light and Dark Humor in Predicting Depression, Anxiety, and Stress,” 19 Eur. J. Psychol. 358, 358–370 (2023).
Elise Kramer, “The Playful is Political: The Metapragmatics of Internet Rape-Joke Arguments,” 40 Language in Society 137, 137–168 (2011).
Kim Koltun, “Rick, Morty, and Absurdism: The Millennial Allure of Dark Humor,” 10 The Forum: Journal of History (2018).
Srinivas Burra, “Decriminalising Creative ‘Offence’,” 49 Economic and Political Weekly 18, 18–21 (2014).
Bruce Michael Boyd, “Film Censorship in India: A ‘Reasonable Restriction’ on Freedom of Speech and Expression,” 14 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 501, 501–561 (1972).
Hira Siddique and Muhammad Rizwan Safdar, “Laughing on Caste, Women Bodies, and Skin Color: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Dark Humor in Punjabi Stage Dramas,” 4 Khaldunia (2024).
BBC News, “India Court Grants Bail to Comedian Munawar Faruqui Over ‘Indecent’ Remarks,” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-59323282 [(last visited Dec. 21, 2024)].
The Hindu, “‘Two Indias’ Monologue by Comedian Vir Das Sparks Sharp Debate, Police Complaints,” https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/two-indias-monologue-by-comedian-vir-das-sparks-sharp-debate-police-complaints/article37535356.ece [(last visited Dec. 21, 2024)].
DNA India, “Jailed for Telling a Joke: Where is Our Sense of Humour?” https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-jailed-for-telling-a-joke-where-is-our-sense-of-humour-2679669 [(last visited Dec. 21, 2024)].