Union of India 15 the Supreme Court observed that sex and obscenity are not always synonymous and that it was wrong to classify sex as essentially obscene or even indecent or immoral. The latter responded promptly and predictably, by vandalising theatre houses and disrupting screening of the film. Return to Text Supra , para 16, at p. Return to Text R.
|Date Added:||27 March 2017|
|File Size:||60.57 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
No one after viewing these episodes would think that patricide or incest with one's own mother is permissible or suicide in such circumstances or tearing out one's own eyes is a natural consequence.
It must not be shackled or restricted. Union of India2 SCCparas 49 and 50, at p. Return to Text FCC v.
The definition of "obscenity" in the Act is, therefore, based on the tendency to deprave and corrupt the likely audience i. Pacifica FoundationUS at p.
A long and rather loveless saga ensued involving its actress Manisha Koirala and producer Shashilal Nair, starting with a suit filed by the former against the latter in the Bombay High Court.
The attempt to keep out evil doctrine by licensing is like the exploit of that gallant man who thought to keep out the crows by shutting his park gate This view was accepted by kakodkxr Supreme Court in Ranjit Udeshi case 7: If that were so Verrier Elwyn's Phulmat of the Hills or the same episode in Henryson's Testament of Cressaid from where Verrier Elwyn borrowed the idea would never see the light of the day.
Chandrakant Kakodkar | Open Library
Clause 1 d of the Guidelines reads: We do not censor to protect the pervert or to assuage the susceptibilities of the oversensitive. Abbas2 SCCpara 49, at chandrkaant. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the scene of frontal nudity was indecent within Article 19 2 and Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Kaokdkar and held that the object of showing the scene of frontal nudity of the humiliated rape victim was not to arouse prurient feelings but revulsion for the perpetrators.
The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. Union bpoks India2 SCC Defence counsel contended that contrary to encouraging readers to homosexuality, drug-taking or violence, it had the reverse effect of making the readers share the horror and fill them with revulsion against what was depicted.
Return to Text But in an earlier case, Chandrakant v.
Although Hicklin's test had been buried in England with the enactment of the Obscene Publications Kaakodkar,six years later, the Supreme Court in India chose to adopt it in Ranjit Udeshi v. Return to Text Miller v. Stanley1 All ER It should have a proximate and direct nexus with the expression.
And yet if one goes by the letter of the directions the film cannot be shown. The latter responded promptly and predictably, by vandalising theatre houses and disrupting screening of chxndrakant film.
The defence of literary merit was not available and the test licensed the prosecution of several literary works early in the twentieth chnadrakant. The Supreme Court relied on the test in Hicklin's case and further interpreted the word "obscene" to mean that, which is "offensive to modesty or decency; lewd, filthy and repulsive".
Sapala - सापळा
Union of India 15 where the Supreme Court held: Rape and sex are not being glorified in the chanerakant. State of Maharashtra 3 the Supreme Court observed that such notions vary from country to country depending on the standards of morals of contemporary society. Return to Text Search On Page: In a society as democratic and diverse as India's such intolerance is an unhappy trend.
This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Chandrakant v. Rape is crude and its crudity is what the rapist's bouncing bare posterior is meant to illustrate. In other words, the expression should be inseparably like the equivalent of a 'spark in a power keg'. Return to Text Ranjit Udeshi v.