Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KANNAIMAL
A ROUGH DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE COURSE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - I FOR THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE DEGREE B.A.,LL.B. SESSION 2021 – 2022
SUBMITTED BY
ROLL NO – 211904
V SEMESTER
SUBMITTED TO
PROFESSOR OF LAW
AUGUST, 2021
1|Page
This case is one of the important cases because it deals with the question of protection of
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and it also clarified the criteria to
check the obscenity of any statement. The Supreme Court stated that obscenity should be
gauged with respect to contemporary community standards that reflected the sensibilities as
well as the tolerance levels of an average reasonable person.
The issue in this case was that whether the Appellant’s remarks could reasonably amount to
offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
HYPOTHESIS –
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY –
SOURCES OF DATA –
Primary source – Constitution of India, Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Indian Penal Code
1860.
2|Page
TENTATIVE CHAPETISATION
1. INTRODUCTION
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
3. CONTENTION RAISED FROM THE APPELLATE AND RESPONDENTS
SIDE
4. JUDGEMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT
5. THE CONCEPT OF DECENCY AND MORALITY
6. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY –
BOOKS -
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing
Company, 2011.
Mahendra P. Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India. Lucknow: Eastern
Book Company, 2010.
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code. Nagpur: Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 2013.
R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2008.
WEBSITES –
https://www.jstor.org
https://www.scconline.com
https://www.manupatrafast.com
https://home.heinonline.org
3|Page