Supreme Court: Abusive Language Not Necessarily Obscene Under Law
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that using swear words and vulgar expletives, while abusive and uncivil, does not automatically constitute obscenity under the Indian Penal Code. The judgment, delivered by a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol, clarifies the legal distinction between vulgarity and obscenity.
The case arose from a 2017 land dispute in Tamil Nadu, where one neighbour repeatedly used four-letter expletives against another. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the accused could be charged under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with obscene acts and songs.
In its ruling, the court stated that “use of mere swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives, however distasteful or uncivil they may be, cannot be equated with obscenity.” It further noted that words which are merely vulgar or abusive may evoke disgust, revulsion, or shock, but that does not make them obscene in law.
Justice Karol consulted dictionaries such as Collins and Cambridge to define terms like 'abusive' and 'vulgar'. The court observed that 'abusive' refers to language that is extremely rude and insulting, while 'vulgar' describes words that are rude and likely to upset or anger people, especially by referring to sex and the body in an unpleasant way.
To qualify as obscenity, the court said, the language must pass the 'community standards test'. This means the terms must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, and have a tendency to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to see, hear, or read them. The court found no evidence that the appellant's verbal outburst met this threshold.
The judgment also referenced previous Supreme Court decisions. In Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, a Constitution Bench explained that obscenity is something that can deprave and corrupt susceptible minds, suggesting thoughts of an impure and libidinous character. In Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that the concept of obscenity varies across countries, depending on contemporary moral standards, customs, traditions, and social background.
Justice Karol distinguished between vulgarity and obscenity, noting that vulgarity arouses disgust, revulsion, and boredom, but does not deprave, debase, or corrupt morals as obscenity does. In this case, the court found the words used—by a now 70-year-old man over a decade ago—were at best abusive or vulgar and did not reach the obscenity threshold.
