Summary: Obscenity laws in India trace their origins to colonial-era legal frameworks, with Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) being a primary regulation. The concept of obscenity has evolved over time, shaped by both cultural values and legal precedents. It is not merely about sexual content but also encompasses acts or materials offensive to the moral standards of society. While the definition of obscenity varies across cultures, Indian law reflects a balance between societal values and individual freedoms, particularly with respect to women’s dignity and societal decency. The landmark “Hicklin Test” was influential in early obscenity cases but was modified by Indian courts in the 1960s, incorporating a more contextual approach. Courts have used cases like Ranjit Udeshi and Aveek Sarkar to further refine the definition. Obscenity laws also intersect with freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, where restrictions on expression can be imposed to protect public order and morality. Contemporary challenges include the regulation of online obscenity, given the rise of digital media and web series, with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act addressing this issue. As India continues to adapt its obscenity laws to societal changes, the balance between freedom of expression and community standards remains a central theme in legal discourse.
Abstract
The legal framework governing obscenity in India has been assessed by discussing the definition, regulation, and interpretation of obscenity by the judicial system. Obscenity has its roots in standards that were developed during colonial times, and its current version is influenced by legislative provisions and landmark judicial decisions.
What comes to your mind when you hear the word obscene? Obscenity is sometimes misinterpreted as any act or object that is vulgar, improper, indecent, or any other type of immoral conduct committed by anyone, however there is much more that exists in the meaning of that word. The majority of individuals in the country are utterly uninformed of the appropriate definition of obscenity, as well as the numerous laws enacted to restrict it. Obscenity is defined as anything sexually repulsive, indecent, or immoral. We shall discuss more about obscenity laws in the study conducted
Introduction
According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word obscene is defined as “offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.” While the word may seem straightforward, its interpretation in legal contexts is complex
Obscenity varies from country to country since every society has its morals, defining it. Obscenity is that statement or act offending the moral values of a community, and can be video, image, articles, illustration, and writings offending accepted social or ethical norms. The interpretation of obscenity is highly subjective, varying from one nation to another, even between communities within the same culture, and even among members of the same group because it changes with time like any other cultural change. With time, the meaning of “obscenity” changes and is largely defined by personal beliefs, which are influenced by society’s values and moral standards.
The concept of obscenity was first codified during the colonial period under 19(2) as an offense, that imposed upon freedom of speech and expression in the Penal Laws of 1860 as a limitation. What makes the law unique is the fact that it is considered as one of the few where the law has always had an equal application in England as in British India.
In India, the obscenity law primarily addresses how materials like books or films portray sexual conduct. Since ancient times, the concept of women’s “purity” has held a significant place in Indian society. Obscenity functions as a social measure, critical for preserving a family’s reputation and honor. Regardless of whether a woman belongs to a royal family or is an ordinary citizen, Indian culture has consistently emphasized the importance of women’s values, particularly their fidelity.
Evolution of obscenity laws in india
Obscenity laws in India historically reflect an interaction of colonial legal frameworks and the traditional cultural values of Indians, clearly reflecting the relativism of societal standards across time. Introduced to the Indian subcontinent by the British colonizers in 1860, the Indian Penal Code, primarily defined and penalized obscene material under Section 292. The legal principles of the British had influenced Indian laws at the colonial period primarily through such an English case as Regina v. Hicklin of 1868 by the judicial interpretation of what falls within obscenity as capable of offending vulnerable minds. It was the first parameter that was used to decide obscenity under British India and continues to shape Indian legal standards even to this day after the nation was free. After independence, courts in India began to develop obscenity laws so that they could cope up with the evolving culture and society of the nation.
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions on Obscenity Laws
Sections 292 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code are the sections on the regulation of obscene books and objects in India. As per Section 292, obscenity is when the sale, distribution, or exhibition of any obscene material or writing, representation of the human figure done in such a manner to deprive or corrupt those exposed to it or is lascivious occurs. The section prohibits the sale, distribution, or public exhibition of obscene materials, writings, or representations of the human figure but has exceptions in workpieces that have artistic, literary, scientific, or religious values. Section 293 becomes more heavy with punishment when it is disseminated to any person below the age of 20 years, thus intending to offer protection to juvenile minds. Section 294 prohibits obscene or indecent acts or songs in or on any public place which are likely to cause annoyance to others.
What laws govern acts of public obscenity, and how are they penalized?
Making an obscene act or speaking or using obscene words, gestures or acts in or before public. Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code While the law has not defined even the very term “obscene act,” yet such can be done only in a public place that would cause annoyance to others. Normally, traditional expressions would find themselves excluded from this section, such as body paints in temples or sadhu nudity. The Section 294 criminals attract terms that consist of up to three months imprisonment, or a fine, or both.
According to the Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956, “harmful publication” means any book, magazine, pamphlet, leaflet, newspaper, or similar publication containing stories, with or without pictures, whether such stories depict repulsive or horrific events, mostly. And such publications are harmful if they tend to corrupt young persons by encouraging or inciting them to crimes, violence, cruelty, or other similar harmful behavior. The act has provided the penalties for selling or distributing such dangerous books and all other dangerous publications for imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both.
The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 declares that no person shall make or print or distribute or expose or offer for public view any advertisement intended to demonstrate or promote women indecently. In addition, the Act prohibits any person to print, publish, distribute, sell, let on hire or otherwise circulate any books, pamphlets, papers, slides, films, writings, drawings, paintings, photographs or figures which depict women indecently. This was landmark legislation that aimed to put an end to inappropriate displays of women in various forms of advertisements, in writings, and more.
India has several more laws that deal with obscenity, one such law is the Post Office Act of 1898, which prohibits obscene material through postal services, and then there’s the Dramatic Performances Act of 1876, which restricts public dramatic performances that are scandalous, defamatory, seditious, or obscene..In addition, the Customs Act 1962 prohibits the importation and exportation of obscene literature, while the Press Council of India Act 1978 prohibits the publication of writings or matter offending public taste for use, especially in children’s readings. In addition, under the Emigration Act 1983, emigration cannot be allowed for employment adverse to public interest, policy, or human dignity and decency.
Key Tests for Determining Obscenity and Landmark Judgments
In 1868, the Queen’s Court in Regina v Hicklin established the ‘Hicklin Test’ as a guideline for determining obscenity, which remained a yardstick in both British India and, subsequently, the Republic of India. The Supreme Court of India first considered obscenity with the Ranjit Udeshi case in 1964, which it approved by adopting the Hicklin Test but added some modifications. In the Court’s opinion, sexy or naked images in themselves did not brand a work obscene, but as a whole with its obscene parts balanced against its decent content, it could be considered obscene. Other obscene material could also be lawful if it was thought to be for the public good. In Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, the Supreme Court had to examine the Bengali novel Prajapati, in which it encountered the question of whether vulgarity was obscenity. The novel contained vulgar language and scenes that a trial court held to be obscene, but the Supreme Court disagreed and established that descriptions of kissing, female anatomy, or implied sexual acts did not, by themselves, constitute obscenity, which thus differentiated vulgarity from obscenity.
In Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra, it was decided that a short story narrating the relationships between a character and three women was indeed offensive but not obscene. However the Court further decided that vulgar and abusive language could also be obscene where relevant to historical persons, as in Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra, wherein a Marathi poem, Gandhi Mala Bhetala (“Gandhi Met Me”), relating to Mahatma Gandhi was held to be obscene.
Whether the photograph of Boris Becker when he was recently engaged to be married to his fiance, semi-nude, is obscene should be held by the Supreme Court in the case of Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal.
This decision was important because the Court abandoned Hicklin, rather than adopting a “community standards test.” In ruling, the Court stated that material should not be measured by how it would affect the weakest in the population; it should be tested, rather, against an average man’s sensibilities, and mores of modern society. The Court also decided nudity alone, without anything more, is not obscene unless it tends to arouse lust. Sections 292, 293, and 294 of the IPC relate to obscene acts, namely the sale, purchase, and public performance of obscene material.
However, with the passage of time and the advancement of technology, books and pamphlets are now not the only mediums through which obscenity spreads; different web series have emerged, making it an arduous task to regulate online obscenity. Under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, just like Section 292, obscenity does not have an exact definition but has penalized the publication and spreading of the
In Chandrakanth Kalyandas Kakodkar, the Supreme Court of India has laid down that “material tendency is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influence who may read the book.” It was held that if dissemination of ideas, opinions, or information serves public interest, it would not amount to obscenity. It makes a great difference of the Court; that it considers whether it’s obscenity depends much on the intent and the effect of the content.
The Miller Test is the basic legal body in the United States in determining whether a work can be classified as obscene according to law. Enacted in the landmark U.S. This test, found in the Supreme Court case Miller v. California, outlines a three-part approach to testing work to determine if it contains elements objectionable to the community based upon its content and impact to society. First, it determines if the work meets a “prurient interest,” measured by the average standards of the community. The test also decides whether or not the material in question depicts sexual conduct or functions in such an objectionable manner as defined clearly under law. Finally, the test tests whether the work lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” For the purposes of law to classify a work as obscene, it would have to pass all three of these tests. This three-pronged test balances community moral standards with freedom of speech by giving such protection to social and artistic value in many works.
Obscenity laws and freedom of speech and expression
Regulating obscenity laws in India surely happens to be a matter of importance but becomes the recurring question whether these regulations could be a right to freedom of speech or expression by the people. The question becomes pertinent in the Indian context as free expression is a constitutionally protected right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution postulates freedom of speech and expression to be a Fundamental right. In real practice, however, there exists no absolute right regarding the freedom in question. Some restrictions could be placed even regarding morality, decency, and public order under the freedom granted in accordance with Article 19(2). This is to say that even though the right to voice thoughts and opinions exist within an individual, this right is limited when those rights conflict with societal mores and the ability to maintain public order.
This limitation tries to protect humans from anything that will lead them into depravity and corruption through any obscene or immoral influence. The landmark case of “Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra,” for the first time in history, the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the word “obscene” referring to the principles laid down in the celebrated Hicklin decision. However, the Court soon realized that the Hicklin test was not capable of determining obscenity in an uniform scale since it is bestowed with different moral standards and cultural values in different nations. What is sexually explicit and hence acceptable in Western nations may be obscene in India. Thus ‘decency’ or ‘morality’ is a term which varies from one country to the other.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the legal structure concerning obscenity in the country does strike a rational balance between the tenets of society and the rights of an individual. On the other hand, Polygamous Laws regarding obscenity that have their origin from pre-colonial laws has however received a face lift over the years as a result of incorporation of sociocultural values by Hi de vicarious extremes axioms. Historic The Hicklin test has been defined on grounds of diverse yarns the ways the community appreciates such a thing in the community standards test in this case of sceneries unexplained artistic works literature works and sociocultural practices. Some of these laws have enacted provisions specifically protecting certain people, especially women and children, from early exposure to certain materials with some pictures of violence and abuse banned. For the past few years or so, much advancement has occurred in the adoption of digital media and within a very short period of time which has changed the way of forming connotations of the word obscenity. The conflict between limits of obscene and indecent speech as stated in the constitution of India Article 19 and the purposes of obscenity laws above has led to arguments where some people claim that these laws are designed to protect the society while in fact they are intended to restrict art. The way forward would be to have obscenity that appreciates both culture and individual rights more defined. By fine-tuning these regulations, India may hope to find a balance between protection of the public order and safeguarding the right to free speech in an emerging world.
References
1. Frederick Schauer, Speech and Speech–Obscenity and Obscenity: An Exercise in the Interpretation of Constitutional Language, 67 Geo. L. J. 899 (1978), https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/glj67&id=909&div=&collection=.
2. Arnold H. Loewy, Free Speech: The Missing Link in the Law of Obscenity, 16 J. Pub. L. 81 (1967), https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/emlj16&id=85&div=&collection=.
3. David A. J. Richards, Free Speech and Obscenity Law: Toward a Moral Theory of the First Amendment, 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 45 (1974), https://www.jstor.org/stable/3311577?origin=crossref (last visited Nov 11, 2024).
Author Bio
