CASES FOR GOVERNMENT (RESPONDENT):-

Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881, ¶ 8 (“This freedom of Article

19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions which may be thought necessary in the interest
of the general public and one such is the interest of public decency and morality”).

Through a series of decisions, the Supreme Court arrived at a definition of

‘obscenity’, which is the “[…] treatment of sex in a manner offensive to public
decency and, judged by our national standards, considered likely to pander to
lascivious, prurient or sexually precocious minds, must determine the result.” 23

Sharat Babu Digumarti vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (14.12.2016 - SC) : MANU/SC/1592/2016 – The
constitutional validity of Section 292 Indian Penal Code was challenged in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of
Maharashtra MANU/SC/0080/1964 : AIR 1965 SC 881. Assailing the constitutional validity, it was urged
before the Constitution Bench that the said provision imposes incompatible and unacceptable
restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed Under Section (sic Article) 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution. The Constitution Bench opined as follows:

“No doubt this Article guarantees complete freedom of speech and expression but it also makes an
exception in favour of existing laws which impose restrictions on the exercise of the right in the interests
of public decency or morality. The Section of the Penal Code in dispute was introduced by the Obscene
Publications Act (7 of 1925) to give effect to Article 1 of the International' Convention for the
suppression of or traffic in obscene publications signed by India in 1923 at Geneva. It does not go
beyond obscenity which falls directly within the words "public decency (1) (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 360. and
morality" of the second Clause of the article. The word, as the dictionaries tell us, denotes the quality of
being obscene which means offensive to modesty or decency; lewd, filthy and repulsive. It cannot be
denied that it is an important interest of society to suppress obscenity.

applying the tests referred to in Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0008/1950 : AIR 1951 SC
118 and State of Madras v. V.G. Row MANU/SC/0013/1952 : AIR 1952 SC 196 case, referred to earlier
in the judgment, it is clear that Section 66-A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the
right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may
be imposed on such right.

20. Thereafter the Court referred to Kameshwar Prasad vs. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0410/1962 : 1962
Supp. (3) SCR 369 : AIR 1962 SC 1166 and Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia MANU/SC/0058/1960 :
AIR 1960 SC 633 and came to hold as follows:

These two Constitution Bench decisions bind us and would apply directly on Section 66-A. We,
therefore, hold that the Section is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep
protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way
as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground
of overbreadth.

Sharat Babu Digumarti vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (14.12.2016 - SC) : MANU/SC/1592/2016

GOVERNMENT - In Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan MANU/SC/3637/2006 :

(2006) 8 SCC 433 this Court noticed the law in the United States and said that a material may be
regarded as obscene if the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that
the subject-matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest and that taken as a whole it
otherwise lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value

Bharat Bhushan and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (09.11.2017 - BOMHC) :
MANU/MH/4077/2017

“The learned counsel for the applicant was justified in placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (supra). It would be useful to refer to
the relevant observations of the Apex Court, which read thus -

"95. It has been held by us that Section 66A purports to authorize the imposition of restrictions on the
fundamental right contained in Article 19(1)(a) in language wide enough to cover restrictions both
within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action. We have held following
K.A. Abbas' case (Supra) that the possibility of Section 66A being applied for purposes not sanctioned by
the Constitution cannot be ruled out. It must, therefore, be held to be wholly unconstitutional and
void.”

In the online world, Section 67 of the IT Act covers similar offences as

IPC Section 292. However, the penalties under IPC Section 292 and
Section 67 are different. While the jail term and fine under IPC Section
292 for first time offenders are two years and Rs 2000 respectively,
under Section 67, it is five years and Rs 5 lakh. The jail term and fine on
second conviction is three years and Rs 5000 under IPC Section 292, but
five years and Rs 10 lakh under Section 67.
17/09/2018 –

Vol. 3 Jamia Law Journal 2018 ISSN No.: 2456-2718 77 COMBATING CYBER OBSCENITY IN INDIA AND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Sushila Devi Chauhan Ritu** Section 67A of
the IT Act, 2000 specifically restricts the publication of sexually explicit or obscene material and section
67B of the Act specifically prohibits child pornography. This section only criminalizes the publication and
transmission of sexually explicit or obscene material in an electronic form but viewing, downloading,
possession etc. is not an offence as per the provisions of the Act.

The Communication Decency Act 1996 (CDA hereinafter), was also passed to protect minors from
pornography. The CDA states that any person, who knowingly distribute, through the use of an
interactive computer service or transports obscene material for sale in foreign or interstate commerce
shall be liable to imprisonment up to five years for a first offence and up to ten years for each
subsequent offence. It was held by the Court that the Communication Decency Act placed the heavy
burden on the speech which is protected.16 Further, in Reno v. ACLU, (1997) 521 US 844 it was held
that CDA suppress a large amount of speech.

Section 72A of IT Act,- amendments also added section 72 A which unlike section 72, applies to any
person handling data under a contract, including but not limited to network service providers.- page
no.33 of cyber law lexisnexis.

SECTION 69 A –

PRIOR to the amendments, the controller, in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, the
security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or the prevention of incitement to commission
of a cognizable offence, the interest of public order could direct any government agency to intercept any
information transmitted through any computer resource. The new section 69A empowers the government
to issue directions for blocking