Information Technology Act, 2000
Important Cases on Online Obscenity: Sections 67 to 67B Case Law
The obscenity test moved in half a century from the Victorian Hicklin rule to a contemporary community standards test, and for electronic content the Supreme Court added a second settlement: ss.67 and 79 with s.81 form a complete code, ousting the general penal law. Topic 61 states the offences; this note, as asked, is the dedicated case digest.
1. The Case Line
Figure 1: Hicklin to community standards to the complete code
📖 Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 4 SCC 257 Facts: A prosecution over the reproduction of a decades-old photograph of a tennis champion and his fiancee, carried by a magazine, tested whether the Hicklin standard still governed obscenity in India. Held: The Hicklin test is discarded in favour of the community standards test: material is judged by contemporary community standards, in its context and for its dominant theme and message as a whole, not by isolated passages or its effect on the most susceptible. The photograph, carrying a message against apartheid, was not obscene, the standard now applied to online content too. |
📖 Sharat Babu Digumarti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18 Facts: After discharge under s.67 IT Act in the bazee.com matter, the prosecution for the same obscene electronic listing was continued under s.292 IPC. Held: Electronic obscenity is governed by a complete code, ss.67, 67A and 67B with s.79 and the overriding force of s.81, so the special provision ousts the general s.292 IPC: once the electronic conduct is specifically covered by the IT Act, there can be no parallel IPC prosecution for the same act (Topics 84, 124). |
- Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (SC, 1965). The Hicklin test adopted into Indian law: obscenity judged by the tendency to deprave and corrupt those open to immoral influences, the standard that governed, in the Lady Chatterley prosecution, until Aveek Sarkar replaced it.
- Avnish Bajaj v. State (Del HC, 2005). The bazee.com obscene listing: the managing director's arrest exposed the platform-liability gap in the original s.79 and drove the 2008 recast; the obscenity branch ended in Sharat Babu Digumarti (Topics 84, 117)
- Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India (SC, pending). The pornography PIL seeking a ban: it produced directions on blocking child sexual abuse material and list-based blocking of sites, while exposing the limits of regulating private adult viewing, the case still before the Court.
- The s.67 family today. s.67 general obscenity, s.67A sexually explicit material, s.67B children, each applied with the Aveek Sarkar community standards test and the Digumarti special-law rule, the offences studied in Topic 61.
2. Quick Revision
Figure 2: One line per case
⚠ Exam trap Hold the two movements separate: Aveek Sarkar changed the test, Hicklin out and community standards in, while Sharat Babu Digumarti settled the forum, electronic obscenity under the IT Act, not the IPC. Cite Ranjit Udeshi only as the overruled Hicklin starting point, and remember the s.67 family's internal grading, 67 general, 67A explicit, 67B children, with s.67B read strictly and separately for child protection (Topic 125). |
3. Frequently Asked Questions
What test applies to obscenity online in India?
The community standards test of Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, which discarded the Victorian Hicklin test of Ranjit Udeshi: material is judged by contemporary community standards, in its full context and dominant theme rather than by isolated parts or its effect on the most vulnerable. For electronic content, Sharat Babu Digumarti adds that Sections 67, 67A and 67B with Sections 79 and 81 form a complete code, so the prosecution proceeds under the IT Act and not under Section 292 of the IPC for the same electronic conduct.
4. Related Topics
- Topic 61: Sections 67 to 67C. The obscenity offences in full.
- Topic 84: Sections 81 to 90. The special-law doctrine of Digumarti.