Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In  Raj Kapoor and others v. State and others2,  Krishna Iyer,   J.,   speaking   for   himself,   while   quashing   the   criminal proceedings   initiated   against   the   petitioner   therein   for   the 2 (1980) 1 SCC 43 production   of   the   film,   namely,   ‘Satyam,   Sivam,   Sundaram’, observed:­  “12. … Jurisprudentially speaking, law, in the sense of command to do or not to do, must be a reflection of the community’s   cultural   norms,   not   the   State’s regimentation   of   aesthetic   expression   or   artistic creation.   Here   we   will   realise   the   superior jurisprudential value of  dharma, which is a beautiful blend   of   the   sustaining   sense   of   morality,   right conduct,   society’s   enlightened   consensus   and   the binding   force   of   norms   so   woven   as   against   positive law in the Austinian sense, with an awesome halo and barren autonomy around the legislated text is fruitful area   for   creative   exploration.  But   morals   made   to measure by statute and court is risky operation with portentous   impact   on   fundamental   freedoms,   and   in our constitutional order the root principle is liberty of expression and its reasonable control with the limits of ‘public   order,   decency   or   morality’.   Here,   social dynamics   guides   legal   dynamics   in   the   province   of ‘policing’ art forms.” [Emphasis added]  

8. It   is   also   alleged   by   the   petitioner   that   the   impugned incriminating   material   appearing   in   ‘Mathrubhumi’   defiles   the places of worship and causes the public to look down upon them with   contempt   and   ridicule,   whereas   worshipping   of   deities   by visiting the temples with purity of body and mind is an integral part of the Hindu religion.

9. It is urged that the said publication in ‘Mathrubhumi’ has the proclivity and potentiality to disturb the public order, decency or morality and it defames the women community, all of which are grounds for the State to impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. To buttress his stand, the petitioner has submitted that  after the publication of the incriminating material, women visiting   temples   are   subjected   to   ridicule   and   embarrassment through   various   social   media   platforms   and   instances   such   as these are bound to have an adverse effect on the liberty, freedom and empowerment of women. 

24. The primary issue that emerges for consideration is whether the  aforesaid portion of  the book ‘Meesha’ which the petitioner asserts   to   be   derogatory   to   the   women   community   is   an aberration of such magnitude which requires the intervention of this Court on the ground that it has the potentiality to disturb the public order, decency or morality and whether it defames the women   community,   and,   therefore,   invites   imposition   of reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.  

36. If   one   understands   the   progression   of   character   through events and situations, a keen reader will find that beneath the complex scenario, the urge is to defeat and to conquer and not to accept a denial. Both the facets are in the realm of obsession and the   author   allows   the   protagonist   to   rule   his   planet.   His imagination   encircles   his   world.   A   reader   has   the   liberty   to admire him or to sympathise.  Either way, the dialogue to which the objection is raised is not an intrusion to create sensation. It is   a   facet   of   projection   of   the   characters.   It   is,   in   a   way, imaginative   reality   or   as   Pablo   Picasso   would   like   to   put   it, “Everything   you   can   imagine   is   real”.     A   pervert   reader   may visualise   absence   of   decency   or   morality   or   the   presence   of obscenity but they are really invisible.