what is obscene for one group may not be the same for another: court.
Obscenity is subjective according to the court that acquitted models Milind Soman, Madhu Sapre and six others in the obscenity case over the Tuff shoes advertisement in 1995.
The additional chief metropolitan magistrate said it was impossible to label the Tuff Shoes print ad as obscene as it was not an incentive to sensuality and nor did it bring “impure thoughts” in the minds of the person of a normal temperament.
In his order, magistrate MJ Mirza wrote, “What may be obscene for a group of society may not be obscene for another group.”
Referring to several classics in Sanskrit, English, Marathi and some other languages that speak of love, romance and sex, he said that only by touching upon such topics, texts cannot be labeled as obscene.
The court said the main criteria in determining obscenity are “reasonable tolerance” for the disputed matter in society. In the day and age where educationists are advocating sex education in schools and colleges, the court was of the view that “too conservative an approach cannot stand the test of time”.
The magistrate also relied on the decision of the Bombay high court in the obscenity row over actor Mamta Kulkarni’s topless picture that had appeared on a magazine cover. The high court had in its decision of 2005 held that obscenity is a “relative term.”
The Mumbai Grahak Panchayat and the Swayamsevi Grahak Sangathana had filed the complaint against the models and the publishers of the photograph, where Soman and Sapre appeared to be in the nude wearing only Tuff shoes, embracing each other with a python slithering around their bodies. The complaint was filed under section 292(2) (publishing, printing, circulating obscene material) of the IPC and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
They had contended that the picture was obscene and can immorally influence the society. The court, however, felt that “education has made members of the society view such work with proper and reasonable approach,” and those purchasing such allegedly obscene matter voluntarily cannot complain of annoyance.
Distinguishing between obscenity and pornography, the court said that unlike pornography, obscenity is not intended to arouse sexual desire. “Pornography is obscenity in a more aggravated form.” Before terming something as obscene, the court said it is important to also take into account the “artistic and literary value” of the disputed material and the possible effect it can have on the minds of its readers or viewers.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}