Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

The legal interpretation of obscenity has significant changes over time, starting with the strict "Hicklin test" from the 1868 British case Queen v. Hicklin (1857). This test initially focused on whether content could corrupt the most susceptible minds, including young and impressionable people. However, courts later recognized this approach was too restrictive and didn't reflect modern societal standards. 

How Has the Legal Definition of Obscenity Evolved Over Time? 

The Evolution of Obscenity Law 

• The Hicklin Test (1868) 
  • This was the first major legal test for obscenity, established in Britain. Under this test, content would be considered obscene if it could "deprave and corrupt" people who were easily influenced, like young people or those considered morally weak.  
  • The court would look at whether the most sensitive or impressionable person might be corrupted by the content.  
  • This was a very strict approach that led to many works being banned or censored. 
• The Modern Community Standards Approach 
  • The law evolved significantly to adopt what's called the "community standards" test.  
  • This newer approach is much more reasonable and considers: 
    • How an average person (not the most sensitive person) would view the content. 
    • The entire work in its full context, not just isolated parts. 
    • Current social values and attitudes. 
    • The difference between truly obscene material and content that's merely vulgar or contains profanity. 

What is the Current Legal Framework in India? 

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 294 
  • This law deals with obscene content and states that: 
    • It's illegal to sell, import, export, advertise, or profit from obscene material. 
    • The law specifically includes electronic or digital content. 
    • Material is considered obscene if it's "lascivious" (expressing sexual desire in an obvious way) or appeals to "prurient interest" (unhealthy interest in sexual matters). 
    • First-time offenders can face up to 2 years in prison and a fine up to Rs. 5,000. 
• Information Technology Act Section 67 
  • This law focuses specifically on digital content and provides that: 
    • Publishing or sharing obscene material online is illegal. 
    • The punishment is more severe than BNS, with up to 3 years in prison and fines up to Rs. 5 lakhs for first offenses. 
    • The definition of obscenity matches the BNS definition. 

What are the Important Legal Precedents? 

• Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1964) 
  • In this case, the Supreme Court banned the book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" using the old Hicklin test. This case shows how strict the earlier approach was. 
• Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014) 
  • This case marked a significant change in how courts view obscenity. The Supreme Court: 
    • Rejected the old Hicklin test. 
    • Adopted the more modern community standards approach. 
    • Established that content must be judged as a whole. 
    • Recognized that social standards and attitudes change over time. 
• Apoorva Arora & Anr. Etc. v. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr [College Romance Web Series Case] (2024) 
  • This recent case further refined the law by establishing that: 
    • Using vulgar language or profanity alone doesn't make content obscene. 
    • There must be a clear sexual element that goes beyond mere vulgarity. 
    • Matters significantly in determining whether content is obscene. 

What are Principles for Understanding Obscenity Law? 

•  The law now recognizes that society's standards change over time, and what was considered obscene in the past might not be considered obscene today. 
• Courts look at the overall impact and context of the content, not just isolated parts or specific words. 
• There's a clear legal distinction between content that is: 
  • Merely vulgar or contains profanity (generally legal). 
  • Actually obscene - focusing on explicit sexual content that goes beyond acceptable social norms (illegal). 
•  The law applies these standards equally to traditional media and digital content, though digital content may face stricter penalties due to its broader reach. 

Conclusion 

This interpretation of obscenity law continues to evolve as courts deal with new forms of media and changing social standards. The trend has been toward a more nuanced and context-aware approach that better reflects contemporary society while still protecting against genuinely harmful content.