Published on: 25th May, 2025 20:52 IST
In recent weeks, two disturbing incidents involving public obscenity and cyber pornography have surfaced, raising serious concerns over public decency due to increasing Public sexual adventures.
The Mandsaur Highway Sex
A politician from Mandsaur district in Madhya Pradesh has come under legal scrutiny after a CCTV video emerged showing him engaging in a sexually explicit act with a woman on a public highway. The footage quickly went viral on social media, leading to widespread public outrage and triggering immediate police intervention.
The individual involved is reportedly the husband of a BJP-backed district-level politician, and the party has since distanced itself from his actions, emphasizing its commitment to public morality and law.
The Jaisalmer Couple Sexual act with old man
In a separate and equally troubling case, the Jaisalmer police arrested Smriti Jain (24), a resident of Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, and her partner Shanu Kumar (28) of Vaishali, Bihar, for filming and distributing obscene videos involving unsuspecting individuals, including a 70-year-old man. The video, reportedly shot in a remote area of Jaisalmer, showed obscene acts performed publicly and was later uploaded to a pornographic website operated by the accused under the name “Hidden Lust.”
Investigations revealed that the duo posed as tourists, lured individuals into performing sexual acts, recorded the footage without proper consent, and monetized the content through adult platforms. The Jaisalmer police apprehended the duo in Delhi and brought them into judicial custody. Further evidence suggests multiple such videos were made in Rajasthan’s Dausa and other districts.
It has since emerged that Smriti Jain, a software engineer, had built an entire digital business around producing and selling explicit content online, raising serious legal and ethical questions.
Applicable Legal Provisions and Penalties
Section 294 of the BNS, 2023 (formerly IPC Section 292) prohibits the sale, advertisement, or public display of obscene material, including in digital formats. Obscene content is defined as that which is sexually suggestive, intended to provoke sexual thoughts, or capable of corrupting morals or influencing public behavior negatively. A first-time offender under this provision may face up to two years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000. Repeat offenders may face up to five years in jail along with a ₹10,000 fine.
Section 296 of the BNS further criminalizes the performance of obscene acts in public, including singing, reciting, or uttering obscene words, songs, or ballads, especially if it causes annoyance to others. This provision seeks to uphold decency and morality in public spaces and regulate conduct that could offend prevailing social norms.
Complementing these are provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 67 of the IT Act penalizes the electronic publication or transmission of obscene material. The definition of “obscene” here is consistent with that in the BNS. However, the penalties are more stringent — with up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹5 lakh for the first offense, and up to five years and ₹10 lakh for subsequent violations.
Additionally, the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 addresses the portrayal of women in a manner that is derogatory, denigrating, or contrary to public morality. The law criminalizes any form of indecent representation across various media. For offenses involving minors, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, strictly prohibits the creation, possession, dissemination, or viewing of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in any form, imposing severe penalties for violators.
Judicial Tests and Evolving Interpretation of Obscenity
Courts in India have played a pivotal role in interpreting what constitutes “obscene” material. Initially, Indian courts followed the Hicklin Test, derived from the British case Queen v. Hicklin (1868) and adopted by the Supreme Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1964). According to this test, content was deemed obscene if it tended to deprave or corrupt individuals susceptible to immoral influence — typically judged from the perspective of children or vulnerable persons. This approach often led to content being censored based on isolated segments rather than the work as a whole.
Over time, the Hicklin Test faced criticism for being outdated and overly restrictive. Recognizing the need for a more contextual approach, the Supreme Court in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014) adopted the Community Standards Test (CST). Under CST, the assessment of obscenity is based on contemporary societal norms. Courts now consider whether the content, when viewed as a whole, appeals to prurient interests — that is, whether it is sexually arousing without possessing any literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
This shift reflects an effort to balance the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution with the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2). The courts have since held that not all nudity is obscene. For instance, in the Boris Becker nude photo case (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that nudity does not equate to obscenity if it has artistic or social value. More recently, in the 2024 College Romance web series case, the Court clarified that vulgar language alone is not obscene unless it is explicitly intended to arouse sexual thoughts.
However, the Community Standards Test is not without flaws. It remains inherently subjective, often varying by region, cultural context, and social evolution. This leads to inconsistent judicial outcomes and legal ambiguity, especially in a diverse and rapidly changing society like India.
While India has a robust legal framework to regulate obscenity across public spaces and digital platforms, the interpretation and enforcement of these laws continue to evolve. Judicial tests like the Community Standards Test aim to provide context-sensitive evaluations, but a uniform legal standard and clearer statutory definitions are still needed to address the complexities of obscenity in the digital age.