A nude or semi-nude picture of a woman cannot be called
obscene per se unless it is designed to excite sexual passion or reveal
an overt sexual desire, the Supreme Court has held.
Quashing
a case against a newspaper for publishing a nude photo of German tennis
legend Boris Becker with his fiancee in 1993, a Bench of justices K.S.
Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri said only those sex-related materials can
be held to be obscene which have a tendency of exciting lustful
thought
“A picture of a nude/semi-nude woman, as
such, cannot per se be called obscene unless it has the tendency to
arouse feeling or revealing an overt sexual desire
The
picture should be suggestive of deprave mind and designed to excite
sexual passion in persons who are likely to see it, which will depend on
the particular posture and the background in which the nude/semi—nude
woman is depicted,” it said.
Obscenity, it said, has
to be judged from an average person point of view as the concept of
obscenity would change with the passage of time and what might have been
obscene at one point of time would not be considered as obscene at a
later period.
“Only those sex-related materials which
have a tendency of exciting lustful thoughts can be held to be obscene,
but the obscenity has to be judged from the point of view of an average
person, by applying contemporary community standards,” it said.
The
bench said the photograph, in which Boris Becker had posed nude with his
dark-skinned fiancee Barbara Feltus as a mark of protest against the
practice of apartheid, wants to convey message to eradicate the evil of
racism and to promote love.
“The message, the
photograph wants to convey is that the colour of skin matters little and
love champions over colour. Picture promotes love affair, leading to a
marriage, between a white—skinned man and a black skinned woman,” the
bench said.
“We should, therefore, appreciate the
photograph and the article in the light of the message it wants to
convey, that is to eradicate the evil of racism and apartheid in the
society and to promote love and marriage between white skinned man and a
black skinned woman,” the bench said.
“When viewed in that angle, we are not prepared to say that the picture or the article which was reproduced by Sports World and the Anandabazar Patrika be said to be objectionable,” it said.
The picture was first published in the German magazine Stern and then in the Sports World and the Anandabazar Patrika in 1993
No comments:
Post a Comment