NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday held that the use of swear words and vulgar expletives in a public place cannot by itself be treated as obscenity under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M Pancholi made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by a 70-year-old Tamil Nadu man convicted in a case arising from a land dispute.
"The test to determine whether the words complained of are obscene or not is to see whether the words are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have the tendency to deprave and corrupt the impressionable minds. Further, it must also be shown that the use of such words has caused annoyance to others. Unless presence of essential ingredients is established, the offence of obscenity cannot be said to be made out," the court said.
The Bench said that while such language may be uncivil or distasteful, it does not automatically attract criminal liability for obscenity.
Clarifying the distinction between obscenity and vulgarity, the court said an expression must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interest and have the tendency to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds to qualify as obscene.
"Obscenity is distinct from 'vulgarity', 'abuse' and 'profanity' in law. Mere swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives, however uncivil they may be, cannot be equated with obscenity."
According to the prosecution, Mani allegedly abused the complainant using vulgar language and attacked him with a billhook during an altercation in August 2017, causing multiple injuries, including a fractured nasal bone. A trial court convicted him under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Madras High Court later acquitted him of the offences under the SC/ST Act but upheld his conviction under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) of the IPC.
On Section 294(b), the Supreme Court said the prosecution must establish that obscene words were uttered in or near a public place and that the utterance caused annoyance to others.
Considering the appellant's age and health, the court modified his sentence.
"Considering the fact present incident occurred due to animosity between the appellant and complainant's family over a land dispute, and keeping in view the age of the appellant, who is about 70 years old, and his health condition, we are inclined to modify the sentence to be served by the appellant till the rising of the Court on a day as maybe specified by the concerned Court. He shall also be liable to pay a fine to the tune Rs.50,000. The same shall be done within a period of two months," the top court said.