Amidst the ongoing controversy over Ranveer Singh posting nude pictures on his Instagram account, Mumbai Police has registered a case against the Bollywood actor under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Ranveer Singh has been booked for obscenity under sections 292, 294 of the IPC and sections 509 and 67 (a) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. An FIR against him was registered at Chembur police station on Tuesday, following which a complaint was filed on Monday, seeking action against Singh for hurting sentiments and insulting modesty of women.
Interestingly, this is not the first time we are seeing someone prosecuted for obscene conduct or pornographic material. Model and actor Milind Soman was accused of obscenity in 2020 when he was booked under section 294 of IPC and section 67 of IT Act for a social media post where he was found on a beach in Goa. He was seen running naked.
In the same year, model and actress Poonam Pandey was also booked by Goa Police for ‘obscenity’ for her video shoot. 20 years ago, two models Milind Soman and Madhu Sapre were booked for obscenity after they posed nude in an advertisement for a shoe manufacturer in August 1995. Years later, he was given a clean chit. Film actress Mamta Kulkarni also faced a similar issue for her cover photo for a magazine. The case against him was quashed years later by the Bombay High Court.
What does the Indian law on obscenity say?
Under the IPC, the aspect of obscenity is covered by sections 292 – 294. Section 292 covers obscene books, pamphlets, papers, writings, drawings, paintings, representations or figures.
This section makes the sale, rent, distribution, import, export, etc. of any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other article punishable.
These are considered obscene if they are ‘erotic’ or appeal to genuine interest or if the effect is intended to corrupt and corrupt people who are likely to read, see or hear the matter. While the act is closest to defining obscenity, terms such as erotic, prudent interest, corrupt are not clearly defined, leaving it open to interpretation. Some exceptions are use for public good, religious purposes, representation of ancient monuments and temples etc.
The offense under this section is punishable with imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2000. If the person is convicted a second time, the punishment is five years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5000.
However, if a youth below the age of 20 years is subjected to everything mentioned in this section, the punishment increases to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
Section 294 of the IPC, without defining the word obscene or obscenity, prohibits any obscene act committed in any public place. It further pertains to the singing, singing or uttering of any obscene song, ballad or words in any public place. Any offense under this provision shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and with fine.
If the provision in respect of Ranveer Singh’s case is interpreted, an offense under section 292 of which he has been charged cannot be attracted, as it relates to a private shoot. The section clearly states that one has to act in a public place to annoy others.
How does the Information Technology Act come about?
Section 67 of the IT Act provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in an electronic form. The provision states that whoever publishes or transmits it or causes it to be published or transmitted in electronic form, any material which is fetish or appeals to the interest or if it has the effect of corrupting and disseminating those persons Whoever is likely to see it corrupt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees.
What the court said on ‘obscenity’
The question of obscenity was raised before the Indian courts in 1965 in Ranjit D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra in relation to the lover of DH Lawrence’s novel Lady Chatterley. The court, while considering the question in detail, observed that this was the first case in which constitutional guarantees were invoked against the operation of the law regarding obscenity and that the book was an eminent author and the center of many controversies.
The court held the book to be obscene and upheld the applicability of Hicklin’s test, which can be traced back to a landmark British case titled Regina v. Hicklin (1868).
Read also | Ranveer Singh accused of ‘hurting sentiments of women’ over nude shoot
The Hicklin test of obscenity is, “Whether the case charged as obscenity tends to corrupt and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences, and in whose hands such publication may fall.”
The concept of obscenity formed from the social point of view of the people
In the case of Samaresh Bose v Amal Mitra, relating to the allegations of obscenity against the novel ‘Prajapati’, the Supreme Court held in 1985 that the concept of obscenity is substantially molded from the social attitudes of the people, which are generally expected to . to read the book. Furthermore, it usually varies from country to country depending on the standards of ethics of contemporary society in different countries.
The court observed that while deciding the question of obscenity, a judge should objectively assess the entire case and also separately complain of the case as obscene.
Therefore, first of all the judge must try to put himself in the position of the author to try to understand what the author intends to convey and if it has literary and artistic value. Next, the judge should position himself/herself in the readership of each age group in whose hands the book is likely to fall and try to appreciate the potential impact. Finally, the judge must apply his judicial mind to decide objectively whether the book in question can be said to be obscene within the meaning of section 292 IPC.
Read also | Clothes donation campaign for Ranveer Singh in Indore. Will the actor cover now?
The Delhi High Court in 2008 in Vinay Mohan v. Delhi Administration held that it is a recognized principle of law that the concept of obscenity is largely molded by the social view of the people and, therefore, in relation to nudity/a woman. This is a particular pose, pose, depending on the surrounding circumstances and the background in which the woman is depicted.
The concept of obscenity changes with the passage of time
In the case of an article in a German magazine about tennis player Boris Becker being naked, which was later reproduced in India, in 2014 the Supreme Court held that the ‘community standard test’, not the Hicklin test, should be applied. is the correct test for. , to determine “what is obscenity”.
The court said that while deciding whether a particular picture, article or book is obscene or not, contemporary customs and national standards should be taken into account and not the norm of sensitive or sensitive group of persons.
“The concept of obscenity changes with the passage of time and what may have been “obscene” at one time will not be considered obscene in a later period,” the court said.
The concept of obscenity will vary from country to country
In 1969 the Supreme Court in another case (Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v State of Maharashtra) held that the concept of obscenity would vary from country to country depending on the contemporary norms of the society. It was said that if a reference to sex was considered obscene in itself, then no books could be sold except purely religious books.
Nude photos are not obscene unless suggestive of a corrupt mind
In the case of Sada Nand v State (Delhi Administration), the Delhi High Court held in 1986 that photographs of a nude/semi-naked woman cannot be said to be obscene unless they are indicative of a corrupt mind. and designed them. Stimulate sexual passion in people who are likely to see or be seen by them.
Every time an artist paints something different, it can be accompanied by discomfort.
In the case of Maqbool Fida Hussain v Rajkumar Pandey, the Delhi High Court in 2008 quoted Picasso as saying, “Art is never sacred. It should be forbidden to the ignorant innocents, never allowed to come into contact with those who are not adequately prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is sacred, it is not art.”
The case pertains to a painting celebrating nudity made by an accomplished painter, depicting India in an abstract and pictorial representation of a naked woman, whose hair flows as the Himalayas show her suffering. After this, the Delhi High Court dismissed all the cases.
The court made an important observation, saying that, every time an artist paints something different, something that is an unpopular point of view, it may be accompanied by inconvenience and unpleasantness, but it may in itself prevent artistic freedom. And there may not be a basis for moving quickly. To label as obscene.
Read also | Did you find this objectionable? Mumbai Police registers FIR against Ranveer Singh for nude photoshoot
“There may be people who may be genuinely annoyed by Hussain’s painting or others, but for them the right course of action is to either shut it down or protest peacefully,” the court said.
A bench of Justice SK Kaul, who is now a judge of the Supreme Court of India, observed that art can be criticized but not invoked as a convenient recourse to the criminal justice system to air any and all objections. should go. an artistic work.
— the ending —