LexDEVI DAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 853
DEVI DAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKAR
A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.1179 of2010)
B
MAY14, 2015
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
s. 292 - Framing of charges under-Against the author,
publisher and the printer of a poem 'Gandhi Mala Bhetala'('I
met GandhiJ - Charges framed-Application by the accused
.
for discharging them - Rejected by trial court - Order D
confirmed by the revisional court as well as the High Court-
On appeal, held: The view of High Court pertaining to framing
of charges as against the poet cannot be flawed- Whether
the poem has any other layer of meaning or not, cannot be
gone into, at the time of framing of charges- It shall be open E
for the poet to put his defense at the trial - However, the
publisher and the printer, in the facts of the case, am
discharged- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
s.292 - Offence under - Constituents of - Held: By F
..
bringing in a historically respected personality to the arena
of s.292 IPC, neither a new offence is created nor an ingredient
is interpreted - The parameter for adjudging obscenity is
'contemporary community standards' test- However, the test
becomes applicable with more vigour, in a greater degree, if G
the name of Mahatma Gandhi is used as a symbol or allusion
or surrealistic voice to put words or to show him doing such
acts which are obscene.
853
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 7 S.C.R.
A
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950
Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) - Freedom of speech and
expression and limitations thereon - Held: Freedom of
speech and expression though has to be given a broad
B canvas, but it has its inherent limitations, it is not absolute.
Art. 19(1)(a) - Interpretation of - Held: When two
interpretations (restrictive and liberal) of Art. 19(1)(a) are
possible, liberal interpretation shouid be adopted - Art.
c 19(1)(a) is intrinsically linked with preambular objectives
which form a part of basic structure- Hence the Article should
be interpreted in aid of the preambular objective.
WORDS AND PHRASES:
-
D
'Poetic license'- Meaning of- Discussed.
'Obscenity' and 'vulgarity' - Meaning of, in the context of
s.292 /PC- Discussed.
E
'Poetry' - Meaning of.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The prevalent test of obscenity in praesenti
is the contemporary community standards test. The
F contemporary community standards test is the main
criterion and it has to be appreciated on the foundation
of modern perception, regard being had to the criterion
that develops the literature. There can neither be
G
stagnation of ideas nor there can be staticity of ideals.
The innovative minds can conceive of many a thing and
project them in different ways. As far as comparables
test is concerned, the Court may sometimes have
referred to various books on literature of the foreign
H authors and expressed the view that certain writings are
not obscene, but that is not the applicable test. It may at
DEVI DAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKAR v.
855
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
best reflect what the community accepts. [para 59, 60) A
[946-E;947-D-G]
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965) 1 SCR
65; Chandrakant Ka/yandas Kakodkar v. State of
Maharashtra 1970 (2) SCR 80 :::1969 (2) SCC 687; KA. B
Abbas v. Union of lf'dia and another 1971 (2) SCR 446 =1970
(2) SCC 780; Raj Kapoor and Others v. State and Others
1980 (1) SCR 1081 = 1980 (1) SCC 43; Samresh Bose &
Anr. v. Amal Mitra &Anr. 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 17=1985 (4)
SCC 289; Director General, Directorate General of C
Doordarshan and others v. Anand Patwardhan and another
2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 403 = 2006 (8) SCC 433; Ajay Goswami
v. Union of India and others 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 770 =
2007 (1) SCC 143; Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh
Hoon and Others 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 136 = 1996 (4) SCC D
1; State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi 1952 AIR 329 = 1952
SCR 654, Ramesh slo Chhote Lal Dalal v. Union of India
andothers1988 (2) SCR 1011=1988(1) SCC 668; Bhagwati
Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government AIR 1947 Nag 1;
Gandhi Smaraka Samithi, v. Kanuri Jagadish Prasad (1993) E
2 APLJ 91 (SN); Promil/a kapur v. Yash Pal Bhasin 1989
Cr.L.J.1241 ;B.K. Adarsh v. Union oflndiaAIR 1990AP100;
S. Khushboo v. Kanniamma/ and another2010 (5) seR 322
= 2010 (5) Sec 600; Aveek Sarkar and another v. State of F
West Bengal and others (2014) 4 sec 257; Shreya Singhal
· v. Union of India 2015 (4) SCALEExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.