Obscene or Honest? The Fine Line Advertising Regulators Walk

The Centre's recent consideration of amendments to the Information Technology Rules (2021) to address obscene content on digital platforms brings to the fore a challenge that advertising regulators worldwide grapple with daily: how do we define and regulate obscenity when its perception varies so dramatically from person to person? 

This question lies at the heart of how we balance creative freedom, commercial expression and societal sensibilities in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.  

At the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), this ambiguity is not theoretical. It is routine. The same advertisement can trigger outrage and applause in equal measure. A recent sanitary napkin campaign illustrates the fault lines vividly. By depicting menstrual flow using red liquid instead of the customary blue, the ad sparked complaints accusing it of vulgarity and distress. Some viewers said they were uncomfortable watching it with family; one even reported a mother in tears. 

Yet the backlash was matched—if not outweighed—by support. Many women welcomed the realism, arguing that it normalised a biological reality long sanitised or erased. The advertiser backed the campaign with extensive research involving women and doctors, framing it as health communication rather than provocation.  

ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council initially found the ad objectionable, though by a narrow margin. But the Independent Review Process, overseen by a retired high court judge, took a different view. The ad, he ruled, was “shocking” but not “repulsive” by constitutional standards—and crucially, did not cause grave or widespread offence. 

The episode exposed the real regulatory challenge: whose sensibilities should prevail in a diverse society? 

Globally, regulators have grappled with this for decades. The International Chamber of Commerce’s Marketing Code, in place since 1937, provides a foundation but most countries adapt it to local social realities. The UK evaluates ads through the lens of context, audience and medium. Australia relies on an independent community panel, structurally separated from industry, to build public trust.  

India’s experience reinforces why self-regulation matters, especially for taste and decency. Unlike rigid laws, it allows flexibility, speed and nuance--qualities essential in a media environment where norms evolve faster than legislation. What offended audiences twenty years ago may barely register today; new sensitivities constantly emerge. 

 Diversity in judgment is not a weakness. It’s a crucial point. Certain principles consistently guide this process: Is the content objectionable to a reasonable person, not the hypersensitive? Is the offence serious and widespread, or isolated? Does context matter: who sees it, where, and why? Is there legitimate intent, such as public health or social awareness? And are decisions calibrated to contemporary standards, not inherited taboos? 

As India considers expanding definitions of obscenity, advertising’s lived experience offers a cautionary lesson. The most effective frameworks do not police discomfort; they prevent harm. They allow disagreement without erasing expression. And they recognise that in a plural society, consensus is rare but fairness is essential. 

The real question, then, is not whether obscenity should be regulated. 

It is how to regulate it without flattening diversity, stifling progress, or mistaking unease for injury. Self-regulation—transparent, inclusive and responsive—may not offer perfect answers. But it offers the most workable ones. 

(The writer is the CEO and Secretary-General of Advertising Standards Council of India. Views expressed are personal)