OBSCENITY:

Article19(2) of the Indian Constitution of 1950:- This provision of the Indian Constitution includes
“decency and morality” as grounds for restricting freedom of speech and expression.

Indian Penal Code Sections 292–294:- These sections prohibit the sale, exhibition, and distribution of
obscene books and objects, as well as the public performance of obscene acts or songs. Obscenity is
defined as being lascivious or appealing to prurient interest, or having the effect of depraving and
corrupting the reader or viewer.

Section 3(c) of the 1876 Dramatic Performances Act:- This section gives the State Government the
authority to prohibit the public performance of any play or drama that, in its opinion, is likely to
deprave and corrupt those present.

The Indian Post Office Act of1898, Section 20 This section forbids the postal transmission of any
indecent or obscene article, or any postal article bearing words or marks of an indecent, obscene, or
grossly offensive nature.

Section 67 of the 2000 Information Technology Act:- This section forbids the electronic transmission
or publication of obscene material.

Sections 2–4 of the 1986 Act Prohibiting Indecent Representation of Women:- These sections forbid
advertisements, as well as the publication or distribution of books and other materials containing
derogatory depictions of women.

Section 95 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure:- This section allows the States Government to
seize copies of books and newspapers containing material that, among other things, is punishable
under sections 292 and 293 of the IPC.

RANJITUDESHI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-INDIAN CASE

The appellant, a bookseller, was convicted under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code for selling an
audiobook edition of "Lady Chatterley's Lover." In his appeal to the Supreme Court, he claimed that
the section was unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The court dismissed the appeal, holding
that the section embodied a reasonable restriction on free speech and expression under Article19(2)
because it sought to promote public decency and morality. It upheld the use of the Hicklin test to
determine what was obscene content.

AVEEK SARKAR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL-INDIAN CASE

The editor of a newspaper, the appellant, was sought to be prosecuted for publishing a nude
photograph in the context of an anti-racism campaign. The Court dismissed the prosecution, ruling
that nudity in and of itself would not be obscene, and that pictures would have to be examined in
the context in which they were published. Using the community standards test, the Court also
determined that the photograph in question could not be suggested to deprave minds or be
designed to arouse sexual desire in those who are likely to view it. The Court questioned the Hicklin
test's applicability, noting that it had been superseded in other jurisdictions.
ROTH V. UNITED STATES- U S CASE

The petitioner was convicted under 18 USC1461, which makes the mailing of “obscene, lewd,
lascivious, or filthy... or other publication of an indecent character” punishable. He contested both
the conviction and the legislation's constitutionality. The Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that
obscenity did not fall under the constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press. Rejecting the
Hicklin test, the court established the standard for judging obscene material as “whether the
dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest to the average
person, applying contemporary community standards.”

R V. HICKLIN- U S CASE

The Court defined obscenity in this landmark case as “whether the tendency of the matter charged
as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences, and into
whose hands a publication of this kind may fall.”

CHANDRAKANTKAKODKAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA- INDIAN CASE

The appellant, the author of a short storey, was convicted under Section 292 of the Indian Penal
Code, along with the printer and publisher. Setting aside the conviction, the Court determined that it
was not necessary to take “an overall view of the entire work and to determine whether the obscene
passages are so likely to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences and
into whose hands the book is likely to fall; and in doing so, the influence of the book on the social
morality of our contemporary society cannot be overlooked.”

SAMARESH BOSE V. AMALMITRA-INDIAN CASE

In this case, the Court distinguished between mere "vulgarity" and obscenity, holding that vulgar
writings were not always obscene. “Vulgarity arouses a feeling of disgust and revulsion, as well as
boredom, but has no effect on depraving, debasing, or corrupting the morals of any reader of the
novel, whereas obscenity has the tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to
such immoral influences,” the Court observed.

BOBBY ART INTERNATIONAL V. OM PAL SING HOON-INDIAN CASE

The case involved a challenge to the "A" certificate issued to the appellant's film based on a
Tribunal's opinion. The Court stated that a film would not be certified for public exhibition if, in the
opinion of the certifying authority, it was against decency as defined in Article 19. (2). The Court
determined that, in this case, the guidelines issued to the certifying authority were followed when
granting the "A" certificate and declined to interfere with its release, observing that the relevance of
the social theme would have to be considered when deciding whether or not to certify a film.

MILLER V. CALIFORNIA

The petitioner challenged his obscenity conviction under a California statute. The Court upheld and
advanced the Roth test, holding that for a work to be obscene enough to be denied Constitutional
protection, it must meet three requirements: (a) the Roth test of contemporary community
standards, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
AJAY GOSWAMI V. UNION OF INDIA

The petitioner asked the Court to order the censorship of allegedly obscene material and news in
newspapers, claiming that it would deprave and corrupt children who read the papers. In dismissing
the petition, the court stated that there could be no suppression of free speech and expression in
protecting children from harmful materials, and that the test for determining whether a particular
work is obscene should be that of an ordinary adult man of common sense and prudence, rather
than that of a hypersensitive man or a child. The Hicklin test's applicability in the information age has
been called into question.