The Supreme Court has reaffirmed an important distinction between offensive language and legal obscenity under Section 294 IPC — mere abusive words are not automatically obscene.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed an important distinction between offensive language and legal obscenity under Section 294 IPC.
Key takeaways
- Mere abusive, vulgar, or profane words do not automatically amount to obscenity.
- Obscenity is not synonymous with vulgarity, abuse, or profanity.
- For words to qualify as obscene, they must:
- Be lascivious.
- Appeal to the prurient interests of people.
- Have a tendency to deprave or corrupt those likely to hear, see, or read them.
- It must also be established that the words caused annoyance to others. Without this essential ingredient, the offence under Section 294 is not made out.
- The Court relied on its earlier decision in Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, reiterating that slang, unconventional expressions, or vulgar language may be distasteful, but are not necessarily obscene.
This judgment reinforces that criminal law distinguishes between offensive speech and criminal obscenity, ensuring that mere incivility is not treated as a criminal offence.
More Stories