Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra

This case explains how India balances free speech with public decency. The Supreme Court upheld Section 292 IPC as a valid limit on obscene material. The Court said we must judge a book by its overall impact using community standards. Mens rea is not required: a seller can be liable for distributing obscene content even without intent to corrupt. Lady Chatterley’s Lover was held obscene and the conviction was confirmed.

• Does Section 292 IPC put an unreasonable limit on Article 19(1)(a)?
• Is Lady Chatterley’s Lover obscene when seen as a whole?
• Is mens rea necessary for possession or sale under Section 292?

• Obscenity & Free Speech: Obscenity can be restricted to protect public decency and morality.
• Seller’s Liability: A seller can be held responsible even without knowledge of every passage; the focus is on society’s protection.
• Community Standards Test: Judge the work as a whole by the standards of the community, not by isolated lines; artistic or social value can be considered.

• Section 292 IPC is valid as a reasonable restriction under the Constitution.
• Community Standards Test adopted; evaluate the work as a whole and consider any artistic or social value.
• Mens rea not required for conviction under Section 292.
• Lady Chatterley’s Lover is obscene: explicit descriptions cross the limits of decency; conviction upheld.

The freedom of speech guarantee does not protect obscenity that harms public morality. Section 292 IPC sets a constitutional boundary. Courts must judge alleged obscenity by the work’s overall effect on the average person, using community standards, while noting any social or artistic merit. Liability under Section 292 does not depend on intent.

• Defines the limits of free speech where obscenity is involved.
• Shifts focus to the overall impact and community standards.
• Clarifies no mens rea is needed, guiding prosecutions under Section 292.
• Shapes how courts view literary works with explicit content.

Mnemonic: C-O-M → Community, Obscenity, No Mens rea.

1. Community: Use community standards; see the whole book.
2. Obscenity: Obscenity can be restricted to protect decency.
3. No Mens rea: Seller’s intent not required for Section 292.

Issue: Validity of Section 292 IPC; test for obscenity; need for mens rea.

Rule: Reasonable restriction on obscenity; community standards; evaluate the whole work; no intent needed.

Application: The novel’s explicit passages outweighed any merit; overall effect offended community standards; seller can be convicted without proving intent.

Conclusion: Section 292 upheld; Lady Chatterley’s Lover is obscene; conviction affirmed.

Section 292 IPC

Penal provision against sale and distribution of obscene material.

Community Standards

Test that reflects how the average person views the work as a whole.

Mens rea

A guilty mind or intention; not required here for conviction.

• Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal — community standards approach.
• Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra — judging the work as a whole.
• Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra — literary merit vs obscenity.