A recent comedy show controversy has everyone pouring their opinions. A lot is being discussed around freedom of expression and its restrictions. The viewpoints all over the internet will get you wondering – Where to draw the line? The matter has even approached the top Court. But this is not the first time when something attracted public outrage over morals. So How do Courts deal with similar matters? Team Lawgical Shots brings some important decisions where Courts mirrored the legal standing over morally debated incidents.
Ranveer Allahbadia Controversy: Courts’ Views on like matters
Ranveer Allahbadia Controversy, Obscenity and Indian Courts
Ranjeet Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1964)
It started in 1959 when a book seller Ranjit Udeshi was booked for selling a copy of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”, which was eventually declared obscene by the Supreme Court.
While addressing the question of obscenity, the Apex Court expressed that “Condemnation of obscenity depends as much upon the mores of the people as upon the individual. It is always a question of degree or as the lawyers are accustomed to say, of where the line is to be drawn.”
The Court clarified that Section 292 of IPC does not make knowledge of obscenity an ingredient of the offence. It further explained that where obscenity and art are mixed, art must be so preponderate as to throw the obscenity into a shadow, or the obscenity so trivial and insignificant that it can have no effect and may be overlooked. At the end, Ranjit Udeshi could not escape conviction.
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)
Actress S. Khushboo faced 23 criminal cases just for sharing her opinion on pre-marital sex. She gave an interview where she said pre-marital relationships are becoming common and should be accepted. Some people got offended and filed cases against her for obscenity, defamation, and indecent representation of women.
But the Supreme Court dismissed all cases, saying:
1.Talking about sex is not per se obscene
2. She didn’t insult or harm anyone’s reputation.
3. Free flow of opinions and ideas is essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry
The Supreme Court made it clear: Morality and legality are not the same! Personal views should be debated, not punished.
Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014)
In 1993, the Anandabazar Patrika and Sports World magazine faced a Court case for publishing a nude photograph of tennis player Boris Becker and his fiancée, Barbara Feltus.
The Court rejected the Hicklin test (which judged obscenity based on its impact on the most vulnerable minds). Instead, it applied the Community Standards Test, considering contemporary social values. The photograph was not meant to be sexually provocative but rather conveyed a message against racism and pernicious practice of apartheid.
The Supreme Court explained that Nudity alone does not amount to obscenity unless it arouses prurient interest. The Court quashed the case upholding the freedom of expression in its essence. This decision set an important precedent, reinforcing that artistic and socially relevant content cannot be deemed obscene just because it features nudity.
XXX v. State of Kerala (2023)
This one is about a mother who was being painted by her teen son on her upper nude body, while her 8 year old daughter sitting nearby drew something on a paper. The whole scene was recorded and video was shared on various platforms.
The Kerala High Court did not find any sexual intent, nor anything pornographic. While acknowledging the woman’s history of battling the patriarchy and hyper-sexualization of women in society, the Court said that nudity should not always be tied to sex. The Court even compared the incident with some bare-chested idols in temples, where it’s all divine and nothing sexually explicit. The Court suggested that “An expression of an opinion, with no overtones of obscenity or vulgarity, should not be a cause of action for criminal action.”
Apoorva Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024)
The matter pertains to the web series “College Romance” which faced backlash and legal action for allegedly containing vulgar and obscene language. While comparing expletives and profane language as against ‘obscenity’ and ‘sexually explicit material’ as per IPC.
The Court explained that “While the literal meaning of the terms used may be sexual in nature and they may refer to sexual acts, their usage does not arouse sexual feelings or lust in any viewer of ordinary prudence and common sense. Rather, the common usage of these words is reflective of emotions of anger, rage, frustration, grief, or perhaps excitement.”
The Apex Court ultimately concluded that availability of content that contains profanities and swear words cannot be regulated by criminalizing it as obscene.
All the work here was a team work by Aakash Poddar, Ridhi Khurana, Pallavi Daruka, Harika Pilli, and Ankita Shaw. The facts were different in each case, and it is all about how Courts perceive the present controversy. Let’s wait, and watch!!
