Can uttering this offensive word lead to an obscenity case? Supreme Court Explains Tamil Nadu Land Dispute Case | Today’s news

The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that the use of abusive or vulgar language, however offensive or indecent, does not in itself constitute the offense of obscenity. The court said such words would attract obscenity provisions only if they are lascivious, appeal to lustful interests and tend to corrupt or corrupt those exposed to them, the Bar and Bench said.

The ruling came from a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi partially allowing the appeal of a man convicted of obscenity after he used the terms “mother****r”, “son of aw***e” and other profanities during a land dispute.

The court reduces the sentence to imprisonment until the start of the trial, orders ₹A fine of 50,000

“Let us be clear that legally obscenity is not synonymous with ‘profanity’, ‘abuse’ or ‘vulgar language.’ The use of mere profanity, profanity and profanity, however distasteful or indecent, cannot be equated with obscene sentiment. . . . Words that are merely vulgar may be vulgar or indecent. but that does not in itself make them legally obscene.” stated the Court.

Read also | Can music labels be taxed for promoting songs they own? Supreme Court to decide

However, the Supreme Court upheld the man’s conviction for grievous bodily harm after finding that he had broken the complainant’s nasal bone with a bullet. At the same time, pending appeal, the court reduced his prison sentence and ordered him to pay a fine of ₹50,000.

What is it about?

The case arose out of a dispute over agricultural land in Tamil Nadu in August 2017. According to the prosecution, the conflict started with an argument between the complainant Mani and the complainant’s brother-in-law over property. Two days later, Mani allegedly got into another confrontation with the complainant’s nephew over the same matter.

The prosecution alleged that when the complainant entered, Mani verbally abused him with profanities and casteist slurs before returning with a shotgun from his house and assaulting him. The complainant suffered injuries to his forehead, nose and thumb and subsequent CT findings confirmed a fractured nasal bone.

Read also | The Supreme Court upheld SEBI’s ₹2.1 million fine on Kotak AMC, Nilesh Shah

The court found Mani guilty under sections 294(b) (obscenity), 326 (grievous hurt) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code along with the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Subsequently, the Madras High Court acquitted him of charges under the SC/ST Act but upheld his conviction under the IPC.

Mani then challenged the high court’s decision in the Supreme Court.

What SC said

In reviewing his obscenity conviction, the Supreme Court noted that the law does not classify every offensive or vulgar remark as obscene.

The Bench said that for words to fall within the ambit of Section 294(b) IPC, they must be lascivious, appeal to lustful interests and tend to corrupt or corrupt those exposed to them. The court also noted that it must be proven that the statement caused harassment to others.

Read also | Center agrees to introduce ‘comprehensive sex education’ in schools, says SC

Examining the legal principles on the facts of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that even if the prosecution’s allegations were accepted in their entirety, the language Mani allegedly used constituted only insulting or vulgar remarks and did not meet the statutory threshold for the offense of obscenity.

“In this case, during an argument, appellant allegedly uttered that “Hey Motherf****r! You son of an ah***! Are you going to support your older sister’s son? Fuck off, you ‘Kurutha’ F****r.”” Such words, however offensive, distasteful, or obscene, do not meet the requirement of § 294(b) of the Executive Order…Furthermore, it does not occur to anyone that the use of such words would annoy others on public place, which is a mandatory component of the section,” the court said.

The court also acquitted Mani of the charge of intimidation under Section 506(ii) of the IPC. He held that the mere use of threatening words during an argument does not amount to criminal intimidation unless the prosecution proves that the accused intended to cause fear or compel the victim to do or refrain from doing a particular act.

However, the Bench upheld Mani’s conviction under Section 326 of the IPC for causing grievous hurt. She found that the medical records supported the complainant’s version that Mani attacked him with a hook, causing him to break his nasal bone, an injury that clearly qualifies as grievous hurt under the law.