Obscenity Law In India

One of the most controversial issue is balancing the need to protect society against the potential harm that may flow from obscene material, and the need to ensure respect for freedom of expression and to preserve a free flow of information and idea. The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression but in Article 19(2) it also makes it clear that the State may impose reasonable restriction in the interest of public decency and morality.

The culminative effect of these provisions seems to sustain the legality of any act of the State which lawfully restrains the publication of ‘obscene’ material in India. The crucial question is, ‘what is obscenity?’

What the laws in India say?

The law relating to obscenity is laid down in Sec.292 of the Indian Penal Code which came about by Act 36 of 1969.

Sec.292 reads as follows:

Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.- For the purposes of sub-section, book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene, if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effects of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely , having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

 Whoever-

sells , lets to hire ,distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution public exhibition of circulation, makes produces, or has in

Possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing painting, representation or figure or any other obscene objects whatsoever, or

Imports, exports or conveys any obscene objects for any of the purposes, aforesaid, on knowing or having reason to believe that such objects will be sold let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation or

takes part in or receives profit from any business in the course of which he knows or has reasons to believe that such an object are for any of the purposes aforesaid, made produced, purchased , kept, imported, exported, convey, publicly excited, or in any manner put into circulation, or

advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

Offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section, shall be punished [on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

Freedom of press

Freedom is important, so is responsibility. In countries like India, the media have a responsibility to fight backward ideas such as casteism and communalism, and help the people fight poverty and other social evils.
Freedom of the press and journalistic ethics is an important topic today in India — with the word ‘press’ encompassing the electronic media also. There should be a serious discussion on the topic. That discussion should include issues of the responsibilities of the press, since the media have become very prominent and very powerful.
In India, freedom of the press has been treated as part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, vide Brij Bhushan and Another vs. The State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129 and Sakal Papers (P) Ltd vs. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305, among others. However, as mentioned in Article 19(2), reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right, in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Hence, freedom of the media is not an absolute freedom.

The importance of the freedom of the press lies in the fact that for most citizens the prospect of personal familiarity with newsworthy events is unrealistic. In seeking out news, the media therefore act for the public at large. It is the means by which people receive free flow of information and ideas, which is essential to intelligent self-governance, that is, democracy.

For a proper functioning of democracy it is essential that citizens are kept informed about news from various parts of the country and even abroad, because only then can they form rational opinions. A citizen surely cannot be expected personally to gather news to enable him or her to form such opinions. Hence, the media play an important role in a democracy and serve as an agency of the people to gather news for them. It is for this reason that freedom of the press has been emphasized in all democratic countries, while it was not permitted in feudal or totalitarian regimes.

In India, the media have played a historical role in providing information to the people about social and economic evils. The media have informed the people about the tremendous poverty in the country, the suicide of farmers in various States, the so-called honor killings in many places by Khap panchayats, corruption, and so on. For this, the media in India deserve kudos.

Defamation in India

 Defamation is the publication of statement which reflects on a person’ reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him. In simple term it means tarnishing somebody’s image by speaking or writing something damaging. There are two types of defamation:

1. Libel: written/published form of defamation 

2. Slander: spoken/oral form of defamation

There are laws which deal with defamation. The basic idea of having a defamation law is to balance the private right to protect one's reputation with the public right to freedom of speech. It allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious comments.

Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines defamation as, ‘whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible, representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said except in cases here in after expected, to defame that person.’ 

Civil and Criminal Law of Defamation:

The Civil law relating to defamation is not codified in India. Civil action against defamation is based on the English Common Law subject to statuary exceptions. Criminal Law of defamation is contained in Sections 499-502 of the IPC.
The main difference between Civil & Criminal proceeding for defamation is pertaining to compensation. While the object of Civil action is to adequately compensate the person defamed for the loss of reputation by damages; the object of Criminal prosecution is to punish the offender by way of imprisonment of fine or both.

A malicious printing or writing or signs, diagrams, cartoons, pictures or visible expression (broadcast) tending to tarnish the reputation of a person so as to expose him/her to public hatred, contempt or ridicule comes under libel. This kind of a libel is usually categorized as civil defamation answerable in damages to the person against whom it is committed. If a libel published by a newspaper / media tends to incite a riot that would be a criminal defamation punishable by the State for the protection of public safety & public good. Publication of obscene, seditious or blasphemous words is punishable under the criminal law of defamation.

Defamation and Press:

Libel is one of the greatest dangers or threats to the publisher/broadcaster. If a publication/broadcaster violates the law of defamation, and defames a person, it may be subject to civil & criminal libel. Governments and their officials often want to make the law of defamation more stringent. They argue that even if the matter is brought before a court of law, the accused tenders an apology or escape with a nominal fine or light sentence (maximum punishment IPC 2 years).
On the other hand Press is of the view that the law of defamation often prevents fearless journalism and exposure of corrupt and scandalous officials. Their argument is that there is already too much misuse of criminal defamation by corporate houses and others to silence the critic and flog off free opinion. Most defendants in defamation law suits are newspapers or publishers or TV channels and most plaintiffs are corporations, business men, entertainers, and public figures.
The Press has been suggesting that the offenders be charged with only civil liability and not with criminal defamation. If it was of a criminal nature, a timely apology should relieve the offender. The press as whole has been demanding amendment of the law of defamation on the lines of the English Defamation Act 1952.
In UK, defamation is mainly a civil offence. The offence of defamatory libel lies in the tendency to provoke a breach of the peace unlike the IPC where defamation is a cognizable offence to the extent to which it causes pain in the person who is defamed