OBSCENITY

Case Law : Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra

Held : The SC observed that the test of obscenity in India is that obscenity without a dominating
social purpose or profit cannot have the constitutional protection of free speech and expression.
The obscene matter in a book must be considered separately to find out that whether it is so
gross that it is likely to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to influences of this
sort and into whose hands the book is likely to fall.

Case Law : Amitabh bachan Corp. Ltd. v. Mahila Jagran Manch

Facts: A petition had been filed to prevent the Karnataka govt. to provide any kind of support
for the hosting of the Miss world 1996. It was contended in the petition that hosting of such an
event would be against the morals of Indian society, thus amounting to obscenity.

Held : The Supreme Court held that the petition was misconceived and the allegations on the
basis of which it was founded were preposterous and that the Beauty Pageant to be held at
Bangalore would not be offensive to our sense of morality and decency; nor could it be deemed
as obscene in the eye of law.

The Supreme court held that the allegations brought out in the petition are baseless and that
such an event would not be offending the morality and decency of our culture and the same
would not be obscene.

Case Law : K. K Abbaas v Union of India

Facts : It is perhaps the first case relating to the censorship of the films. The important question
before the court was relating to the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression
conferred by Art 19(1)(a) and pre censorship of cinematograph films. The petitioner, inter alia,
raised the following two questions before the court :

1. That pre censorship itself cannot be tolerated under the freedom of speech and
expression &
2. Even if it was a legitimate restraint on the freedom, it must be exercised on very definite
principles which leave no room for arbitrary principles.

Held : The Supreme Court taking into consideration everything, held that censorship on films
including pre censorship was constitutionally valid in India as it was reasonable restriction
within the ambit of Article 19(2). It observed that it had been almost universally recognized that
motion pictures must be treated differently from other forms of art and expression because :

1. Motion pictures have the ability of instant appeal to the sight and hearing &
2. Its effect on children and immature adolescents was great.

It further observed that principles laid down in UDESHI's case applied mutatis mutandis to an
obscene cinematograph film.
Case Law : Bobby Art International v Om Pal Singh Hoon

Facts : It is also known as Bandit Queen Case and concerns the question of obscenity in films.
The following was contended in the petition that :

1. The way the rape scenes were depicted and the manner in which such scenes were
picturised were questionable and
2. The depiction of gujjar community in those scenes amounts to moral depravity of that
particular community.
3. Such scenes were obscene and horrendous.

HELD: The court permitted the exhibition of the film on certain conditions and refused to accept
the above contention on the following grounds :

1. The film must be judged in its entirety and from the point of view of overall impact.
2. As the theme of the film if to condemn degradation, violence and rape on women, then
such scenes of rape and use of expletive to advance the intended message of arousing a
revulsion against the perpetrators and pity for the victim, it would be permissible.
Moreover, rape and sex have not been glorified in the movie.
3. It further stated that, the movie is depictive of the reality which is prevalent in certain
parts of our country.

Case Law : Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra

Facts : It had been contended that the novel 'prajapati' contains matters which are obscene and
that the author and publisher sold the same and thus has committed an offence under S. 292 of
IPC.

Held : The SC held that in judging the question of obscenity, the judge shall place himself in
following two positions :

1. In the position of author and see as to what the author seeks to convey and does the
same have any literary and artistic value &
2. In the position of a reader of every age group
and then apply his judicial mind to decide whether the book in question is obscene or not. The
court must take an overall view of the matter complained as obscene, and also consider the
matter charged as obscene separately.

Therefore, on the above laid basis it held that novel prajapati is not obscene. It said that if a
reference to sex in a novel is to be considered as obscene and not fit to be read by adolescents,
then the adolescents would not be in a position to read any novel expect books which are purely
religious.
Case Law : S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal

Facts : Tamil Actor Khushboo had made remarks on pre marital sex in an interview which had
been published. The same had been challenged on the following grounds : obscenity,
defamation, statements conducive to public mischief, and act intended to insult the modesty of a
woman and under the Act that prohibits indecent representation of women.

Held : The SC held that none of the alleged offences of Khushboo existed on examination of facts.
SC said that if a mere reference to sex by itself is considered obscene then no books can be sold
except those which are purely religious. The test is whether a class of persons by reading have
impure and lecherous thoughts aroused in their minds or not. The Bench said obscenity should
be gauged with respect to contemporary community standards that reflected the tolerance
levels of an average reasonable person.

All that Khushboo did was to urge societal acceptance of the increasing instances of premarital
sex when both partners were committed to each other, the court pointed out. Even if it were to
be assumed that her statements could encourage some people to engage in premarital sex, no
legal injury had been shown since the latter was not an offence, the court explained.