Explained: Amid Row Over Ranveer Singh's 'Nude' Photoshoot, What Are The Laws That Deal With Obscenity In India?

Obscenity Laws in India: Actor Ranveer Singh is in the spotlight for his photoshoot in a magazine. It has triggered an intense debate around what constitutes 'obscene' and what is obscenity in India. 

Ranveer Singh is in the spotlight for his photoshoot for an international magazine

Source : Instagram

"What may be obscene to some may be artistic to other; one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric". "As the beauty lies in the beholder's eye, so does obscenity". The remarks by the Kerala High Court pertaining to a case against a Malayalam magazine featuring a model breastfeeding a baby on its cover page come to our mind amid the controversy around actor Ranveer Singh's nude photoshoot.

Ranveer Singh, known for his films and sartorial fashion choices, is in the spotlight for his photoshoot in an international magazine. It has triggered an intense debate around what constitutes "obscene" and what is obscenity in India. 

The Mumbai Police has registered an FIR against the actor following a complaint from an NGO alleging that he had "hurt the sentiments of women in general and insulted their modesty through his photographs".

The word obscene came from the Latin term Obscenus which means "offensive", especially modesty. The literal meaning of the word "obscene" is, according to Oxford, (portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency, simply something that can offend the moral principles of a civilised society. Let us dive more into the issue and find out what exactly in India constitutes "obscene". 

Laws That Deal With Obscenity In India:

Ranveer Singh has been booked under Sections 292, 293 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It must be noted that sections 292 and 293 are colonial-era provisions.

Section 292 of IPC: This section deals with the publication, sale (including import and export), exhibition, etc of things that are considered to be obscene. This section provides punishment of up to two years and a fine of up to Rs 2,000 on the first conviction. For the second conviction, one can be imprisoned up to five years and fined Rs 5,000. 

Section 293 of IPC: This section deals with who can be booked under this offence. This section says anyone who offers or attempts to sell, rent, distribute, display, or circulate any obscene item to anyone under the age of 20 shall be punished. The maximum punishment for the first conviction is imprisonment for three years and a fine of up to Rs 2,000 and for the second conviction seven years with a fine of up to Rs 5,000.

Section 294 of IPC: This section of the IPC defines what can be considered an obscene act. The section says whoever, to the annoyance of others, (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment that may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

Section 509 of IPC: This section deals with a word, gesture or act that is intended to insult the modesty of a woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman. The punishment entails imprisonment for one year and/or a fine of Rs 1,000.

Sections 67A: This section of the IT Act deals with material containing a sexually explicit act in electronic form. The punishment is five years in jail and a Rs 10 lakh fine for the first conviction. For subsequent violations, the punishment is seven years in jail and a Rs 10 lakh fine.

Who Can File A Complaint? 

Any person who thinks that an object on display, sold or shared has the potential to corrupt the mind of those who come into contact is an aggrieved person. The individual filing the complaint may or may not be in contact with the offensive object personally and is eligible to file a complaint against the person who is responsible for the spread of such content. 

Who Can Be Booked For Obscenity? 

Only the individual who has displayed, shared or sold the obscene material can be prosecuted. In the case of large social media giants, they are exempted from criminal liability if they were expeditious in removing the content from their networking sites on receiving such information(Section 79 of Information Technology Act,2000).

Only the individual who displayed, distributed, or sold the obscene material is held accountable. Large social media companies are protected from criminal liability if they promptly remove the content from their networking sites on receiving such information (Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000).

Do Our Laws Define What Exactly Comprises Obscene? 

While there are sections under IPC that deal with the obscene act, none of them clearly define what may be called "obscene".

Section 292 of the IPC says, for a book or object to be obscene, it must be lascivious or prurient or have the effect of depraving or corrupting someone. However, the terms 'lascivious', 'prurient' have not been clearly defined, leaving room for interpretation by the judiciary.

The first major case dealing with obscenity law in India was Ranjit Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra, decided more than 50 years ago, in 1964. In this case, the Supreme Court had to consider whether DH Lawrence's novel, Lady Chaiterley's Lover, was obscene. Udeshi, a bookseller, was appealing against his conviction under Section 292 for selling copies of the book.

In this case, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of section 292 IPC.

The court held that Section 292 IPC constituted a reasonable restriction on the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) in the interest of morality and decency. The SC interpreted the word "obscene" to mean something that is "offensive to modesty or decency; lewd, filthy and repulsive".

For the verdict, the court relied on the Victorian-era Hicklin's test. The Hicklin test examines whether the impugned matter tends to "deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall".

However, in the Aveek Sarkar case of 2014, the Supreme Court did away with the Hicklin test and adopted the American Roth test. As per this test, obscenity was to be evaluated like an average person would, applying contemporary community standards.