The bench of 2 judges of supreme court gave judgement in considering the petitioners

proposals ,the court tells about the existing regulatory measures which are relevant to the
press and the protection of minors from obscene scene.it was seen that press council act of
1978,which build up administrative body which guarantee with the respect to newspaper,
news organisations and writers to up keep exclusive requirements of public taste and
encourage both rights.
Court held “imposing a blanket ban on the publication of certain photographs and news etc.
will lead to a situation where newspapers will publish material intended only for children and
juveniles and adults will be deprived of the opportunity to read their share of entertainment
which may be permissible under normal standards of decency in any society. "
As observing definition of obscenity is different based on culture to culture between
communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities.
there should be” culture of responsible” reading in readers of the articles and no news should
be seen or read in isolation.it is necessary see it as a whole as it could be publication
advertisement or article.As public should not see meaning in a picture or article which is not
conceived to be conveyed through the picture or the news item”, the Bench said.
As per Indian current standards and took into account US case law on the issue. In Reno v.
American Civil Liberties Union (1997), the US Supreme Court struck down two provisions
of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that criminalized the online transmission of
"obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under the age of 18. The court held, in part,
that protecting children from harmful material does not justify an unnecessarily broad
suppression of speech directed at adults. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of India considered
it necessary that "the publication must be considered as a whole and the impugned should
also be examined separately to judge whether the impugned passages are so grossly obscene
as to be likely to corrupt and corrupt.
The court observed that the documents addressed to the applicant for the alleged distribution
of sexually exploitative material had no purpose to take into account illegal intrigues or the
harming of minors and that specific administrative measures were set up to guarantee that no
gruesome material would be distributed. In view of the foregoing examination, the court
excused Goswami's appeal for "failing to establish the need and requirement to curtail
freedom of speech and expression. The court dismissed Goswami’s petition for the failure “to
establish the need and requirement to curtail the freedom of speech and expression.