Intelligent viewers should judge what is obscene

A long time ago, Parliament asked the government to use its wisdom and define indecency, obscenity and vulgarity. A particular act or scene is, however, condemned on the basis of the executive''s perception. Public interest or what the Supreme Court has been reiterating for decades on the issue often gets ignored in a hurry to label something either indecent or vulgar, thus not fit for public viewing.
By taking objection to a TV channel''s expose of some law makers indulging in sex and the phenomenon of the ‘casting couch'', the Central government has again placed itself in a peculiar position.The government feels the "activities shown by the channel appear to have offended good taste and decency" as they were "not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition".
In response to the government''s notice, the TV channel is reported to have replied that the questioned expose were part of its drive to expose various other social evils like corruption and police excesses on certain vulnerable sections of society.
Thus, any action like imposing restriction on it under Article 19(a)(2) would be unjustified and illegal.
In 1986, a Bench of the then Chief Justice A M Ahmadi, Justices S P Bharucha and B N Kirpal (they also retired as CJI later) dealt with the issue of obscenity and immorality in a petition raising a doubt whether film Bandit Queen based on the life of Phoolan Devi, who later became an MP and was murdered, was fit to be given clearance from the Censor Board.
It recalled a Constitution Bench in the K A Abbas case (1970) relating to a documentary film titled A Tale of Four Cities. The then CJI M Hidayatullah held: "Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read."
He further warned: "If the depraved begins to see in these things more than what an average person would, in much the same way, as it is wrongly said, a Frenchman sees a woman''s legs in everything, it cannot be helped."
Sex and obscenity are not always synonymous and it is wrong to classify sex as essentially obscene or even indecent or immoral. The apex court has also felt that its concern should be to prevent the use of sex designed to play a commercial role by making its own appeal.
Neither Parliament nor the government has indicated the need of society and the freedom of the individual.