1. Defining Decency and Morality in Legal Terms

• Morality:
  • Principles determining right or wrong based on societal ethics.
  • Subjective and varies across cultures.
  • Shapes laws on personal conduct, public behavior, and content regulation.
• Decency:
  • Focuses on public appropriateness and societal respectability.
  • Evaluates expressions in public spaces, media, and advertising.

2. The Interplay Between Decency, Morality, and Freedom of Speech

• Constitutional Context:
  • Article 19(1)(a): Ensures freedom of speech and expression.
  • Article 19(2): Permits restrictions for public order, decency, and morality.
• Balancing Rights and Societal Interests:
  • Courts resolve conflicts through a contextual approach.
  • Examples:
    • K.A. Abbas vs. Union of India (1970): Upheld censorship for indecent content but emphasized balanced restrictions.
    • Bobby Art International vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996): Allowed sensitive depictions for narrative necessity.

3. Obscenity and Indecency: Legal Interpretations

• Obscenity:
  • Defined under Section 292 of IPC as material corrupting individual morals.
  • Shifted from the Hicklin Test to the Community Standards Test (Aveek Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal, 2014).
• Vulgarity:
  • Offends but does not corrupt morals.
  • Samaresh Bose vs. Amal Mitra (1986): Differentiated vulgarity from obscenity.

4. Laws Governing Decency and Morality in India

• Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
  • Section 292: Prohibits selling or distributing obscene material.
  • Section 293: Prevents sale of obscene materials to minors.
  • Section 294: Criminalizes obscene acts and songs in public spaces.
• The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986:
  • Prevents derogatory or indecent portrayal of women.
• The Information Technology Act, 2000:
  • Section 67: Prohibits transmission of obscene material online.
  • Section 67A: Imposes penalties for sexually explicit electronic content.
• Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Code, 2021:
  • Requires platforms to filter and remove objectionable content.

5. Case Laws and Judicial Precedents

• Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra (1965): Conviction for selling obscene material upheld.
• Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodar vs. State of Maharashtra (1970): Emphasized the relativity of obscenity.
• Aveek Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (2014): Adopted the Community Standards Test.
• Samaresh Bose vs. Amal Mitra (1986): Differentiated vulgarity from obscenity.

6. Digital Media and Decency: Challenges and Implications

• Rapid Growth of Digital Platforms:
  • Social media and streaming bypass traditional censorship.
• Regulatory Framework:
  • Intermediary Guidelines impose content moderation obligations.
  • Example: Perfume advertisement removed in 2022 for promoting sexual violence.
• Balancing Privacy and Regulation:
  • Ensures objectionable content is regulated without undermining user privacy.

7. Strict Liability for Platforms

• Online platforms face strict liability for not addressing objectionable content.
• Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra (1965): Precedent for liability, even in cases of unawareness.

8. Conclusion

• Dynamic Nature: Decency and morality evolve with societal norms.
• Balancing Act: Indian law balances individual rights with societal values.
• For Online Platforms: Compliance with decency and morality laws is critical to avoid penalties and reputational harm.
• Future Challenges: With digital content growing, maintaining this balance requires constant legal and societal adjustments.