In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that merely using abusive, vulgar, or profane language does not amount to the offence of obscenity under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that obscenity in law is distinct from vulgarity or abuse and must involve elements that are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, and have a tendency to deprave or corrupt those exposed to it.

The ruling came in Mani @ Subramaniyam v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, where the appellant had been convicted for offences under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC following an assault arising out of a land dispute.

Examining the allegation that the accused had used offensive and abusive expressions during the altercation, the Court observed that such words, though insulting and uncivil, could not automatically be treated as obscene. The Bench noted that obscenity requires proof that the words were lascivious, appealed to sexual instincts, and had the tendency to deprave and corrupt impressionable minds. Mere swear words and profanities, however distasteful, do not satisfy this legal test.

The Court consequently set aside the conviction under Section 294(b) IPC. It also quashed the conviction under Section 506(ii) IPC, holding that mere threatening words uttered during an altercation, without evidence of an intention to cause alarm or compel a person to act against his will, would not constitute criminal intimidation.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC after finding that the complainant had suffered a fractured nasal bone due to an attack with a billhook, a dangerous weapon. The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness testimonies and established the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

Considering the appellant’s age of about 70 years, health condition, and the fact that the incident stemmed from a land dispute, the Court substantially reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and enhanced the fine to ₹50,000.

The judgment is expected to have an important impact on criminal prosecutions under Section 294 IPC by reaffirming that abusive or vulgar language, without the legally required elements of obscenity, cannot by itself attract criminal liability under the provision.

Representation:-

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.Paramasivam, Adv., Mr. Y.Arunagiri, Adv., Mr. Utsav Kumar, Adv., Ms. Medhavi Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Devendar Kumar, Adv., Mr. R. Sudhakaran, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
For Amicus Curaie : Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR, Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv., Mr. Vineeth B. Prasad, Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Sati, Adv., Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv.