Magazine; repetitive photographs of nude women; without literary content or backdrop.

 Where issue of obscenity relates to the script (viz-a-viz a photograph), issue has to be considered differently for the reason in the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court reported asRanjit D.Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra the realities of popular permissiveness was reflected by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court spoke of "new literary standards" and noticed that the world had moved away from the times when even "Mill On The Floss" was considered immodest.

15. But where repetitive photographs without any backdrop content are published in a magazine and nearly 1/4th of the magazine consists of nothing but repetitive photographs of semi-nude women, prominence being to display their breast, there being hardly any literary contents in the magazine, the matter loses any literary content and therefore the broad social outlook penned in Ranjit Udeshi's case may not be available as a defense.Prima facie, pictures which are only intended to arouse sexual desire would be pornographic. Certainly, such pictures would offend and would be against public decency and morals, hence obscene.

Vinay Mohan Sharma v. Delhi Administration (5/11/2007)The Delhi High Court2008 Cri LJ 1672

Print Page