Criminal Liability For Publishing Obscene Materials
1. Overview: Criminal Liability for Publishing Obscene Materials
Publishing obscene materials is a criminal offence in most legal systems, including India, under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The key provisions include:
IPC Section 292: Sale, distribution, or public exhibition of obscene materials.
IPC Section 293: Sale of obscene materials to minors.
IPC Section 294: Obscene acts or songs in public places.
IT Act Section 67: Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Definition of “Obscene”:
Traditionally, “obscene” is interpreted based on community standards or tendency to deprave or corrupt morals (Hicklin test, 19th century).
Modern law also considers artistic, literary, or social value.
Liability arises when:
Material is sexually explicit or offensive to morality.
Material is published, transmitted, sold, or distributed publicly.
Offender knew or had reason to believe it was obscene.
2. Landmark Case Laws
2.1 Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965)
Facts: The accused published the book Lady Chatterley’s Lover, which contained sexual content. He was charged under Section 292 IPC for selling obscene material.
Legal Issues:
Does literary merit protect a book from being considered obscene?
How to balance freedom of speech and morality?
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. It applied the Hicklin test (from English law), which held that material is obscene if it has the tendency “to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.”
Impact:
Established the standard of obscenity in Indian law for several decades.
Highlighted conflict between freedom of expression and societal morality.
2.2 Aveek Sarkar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal (2014)
Facts: This case involved a magazine that published semi-nude images and sexual content. The publisher was charged under IPC Sections 292/294.
Legal Issues:
Whether images with artistic or journalistic value can be considered obscene.
How to define obscenity in the context of contemporary media.
Judgment: The Supreme Court referred to the “community standards test”, emphasizing that material should be judged by its effect on an average person rather than the most sensitive individual. Material with redeeming literary or artistic value cannot be deemed obscene.
Impact:
Modernized the understanding of obscenity in India.
Balanced freedom of expression and public decency, paving the way for more nuanced decisions regarding media and publications.
2.3 Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1962)
Facts: A newspaper published provocative cartoons and articles allegedly hurting public morality. The case involved challenge under IPC Sections 292/294.
Legal Issues:
Whether satire, cartoons, or social commentary fall under obscene material.
How to interpret obscenity in journalistic or political context.
Judgment: The court observed that the intent of the publication and the social context are relevant. Satire or commentary aimed at social reform is not obscene, even if it contains provocative elements.
Impact:
Introduced the intent test in obscenity cases.
Allowed for press freedom and literary expression despite explicit content.
2.4 R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
Facts: The magazine Dina Vikatan intended to publish an autobiography of a former public servant containing sexual content. State authorities tried to stop publication.
Legal Issues:
Conflict between Right to Privacy vs. Freedom of Press vs. obscenity laws.
Whether publishing sexual material about private individuals constitutes obscenity.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that while the Right to Privacy is important, public interest and freedom of press can outweigh it in certain contexts. Material was obscene only if it lacked any public interest.
Impact:
Clarified the limits of obscenity for publications involving private lives.
Strengthened judicial balancing of free speech and decency.
2.5 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: This was primarily about online content under IT Act Section 66A and Section 67. Shreya Singhal challenged vague provisions restricting online speech and obscene content.
Legal Issues:
Whether Section 67 of IT Act criminalizing obscene electronic content was constitutional.
How to define and enforce obscenity in digital media.
Judgment: The Supreme Court read down Section 66A (struck it down) but upheld Section 67, clarifying that:
Only material with sexual intent and tendency to corrupt morals is obscene.
Mere nudity or discussion of sexual matters for education, art, or science is not.
Impact:
Modernized obscenity law for the digital age.
Emphasized intent, context, and social impact as key in judging criminal liability.
2.6 R. v. Penguin Books Ltd. (UK, 1960) – Comparative Reference
Facts: The English case involving publication of Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Penguin Books was charged with obscenity.
Judgment: Court acquitted, using the “public good” test, recognizing literary merit.
Impact on India:
Influenced the debate on literary value vs. obscenity in Indian law, though Ranjit D. Udeshi initially applied the stricter Hicklin test.
Key Principles from These Cases
Hicklin Test (Ranjit D. Udeshi): Material is obscene if it corrupts susceptible minds.
Community Standards Test (Aveek Sarkar): Average person standard; considers social context.
Intent Test (Sakal Papers): Focus on the intention of the publisher.
Literary/Artistic Value: Material with redeeming value is generally protected.
Digital Obscenity (Shreya Singhal): Electronic content liability considers context, intent, and social impact.
Summary:
Criminal liability arises for obscene publications only when intentional, sexually explicit, and lacking any redeeming social, literary, or artistic value.
Courts have evolved from a strict moralistic approach to a balanced approach, considering intent, effect, and freedom of expression.
RELATED Blog
comments