Free speech is essential for any prosperous society, especially society that are based on pluralism and diversity. But today, it is being hunted by many in various cases. In India, colonial heritage and laws have shaped a constitutional discourse on free speech. Article 19 (1) (A) is the base and fountain, in which only the restriction is under Article 19 (2), which should be appropriate and with India’s sovereignty, integrity, security and foreign states, or with public orders, decency and morality, or with a court contempt, defamation or a crime.
Each time at a time, a public event is such that it offends the public and stops the debate on morality, which gives special emphasis on regulating speech on technical platforms, including audio-visual form. While these debates are hot, we often forget that there is a difference between obscenity and obscenity. For example, culture of use abuse (Abuses, curses, or impure), both folk and popular traditions as well as daily exchange, are quite common. Some recent controversies about raw humor and comments need to be addressed and understood in this light.
Pornography vs. obsceneness
What Vulgar is cannot be obscene, although it is only the latter that is prohibited in law and prohibited as an exception to free speech. Pornography, of course, may not be in good taste, but it is not prohibited under the law.
Supreme Court in Apoorva Arora and Anra. v. State In his judgment on March 19, 2024, it is believed that the use of pornomic language and impurity itself does not form pornography. The case wandered around a web series, College romanceWhich had unholy language. The court distinguished between obscenity and obscenity and especially within the scope of digital media, created a good balance amid freedom of expression with social standards of decency.
The court rejected the old ‘Hikrin Test’ Regina vs Hikrin By Chief Justice Cockburn in 1868. This defined obscenity based on its impact on its recipients, something that essentially corrupts their brain to unethical effects. The court then followed its decision Aveek Sarkar v. West Bengal State (2014), where ‘Community Standard Test’, also known as ‘Miller Test for Pornography’, as proposed by the US Supreme Court Miller vs California In 1973. Testing, consisting of three levels, considers a material legally obscene:
- An average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds the work that appeals to a prurient (highly sexual) interest;
- Sexual conduct in work is depicted in an aggressive way, as defined by the applied law; And
- The work taken as a whole is lack of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
We live in a digital age where audio-video stimulation and ‘material’ are unavoidable. Thus it is important that guaranteed rights under Article 19 (1) (A) are protected by enthusiasm. Any type of suppression should be judicially inserted, and freedom should be preserved in all circumstances and at all costs. Constitutional ethics is supreme, and should be implemented in this way, without India’s funded traditions, satire, humor, literature and folk culture are being compromised.
Do not allow a tool to suppress pornography
India is both India and India. If our daily linguistic interactions are complete Gallis And obscenity, then such accents, at least at a public level, should not be made tools or excuses to suppress free speech and expression. Ethics should be expressed through dialogue, and resentment should be applied through maturity, not through violence.
Such cases have come up Shreya Singhal vs India Union (2015), where the court hit the provisions, which led to polling of material and dissatisfaction on the Internet. Constitutional morality should remain guiding forces in determining the limits of free expression rather than subjective moral standards.
(The author is a lawyer and partner in Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Company)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
,
