Can saying this abusive word lead to an obscenity case? Supreme Court explains in Tamil Nadu land dispute case

The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that the use of abusive or vulgar language, no matter how offensive or uncivil, does not by itself amount to the criminal offence of obscenity. The court mentioned such words would attract obscenity provisions only if they are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have the tendency to deprave or corrupt those exposed to them, reported Bar and Bench.

The ruling came from a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi while partly allowing the appeal of a man convicted for obscenity after he used the expressions “motherf****r”, “son of a w***e” and other vulgar expletives during a dispute over land.

Court reduces sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, orders ₹50,000 fine

“Let’s be clear, legally, obscenity is not synonymous with ‘vulgarity’, ‘abuse’ or ‘profanity’. Use of mere swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives, however distasteful or uncivil they may be, cannot be equated with obscenity...Words which are merely vulgar or abusive may evoke a feeling of disgust, revulsion or shock, but that by itself does not make them obscene in law,” the Court mentioned.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the man's conviction for causing grievous hurt after finding that he had fractured the complainant's nasal bone with a billhook. At the same time, it reduced his sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and ordered him to pay a fine of ₹50,000.

What is the case about?

The case stemmed from an agricultural land dispute in Tamil Nadu in August 2017. According to the prosecution, the conflict began with an argument between the appellant, Mani, and the complainant's brother-in-law over the property. Two days later, Mani allegedly got into another confrontation with the complainant's nephew over the same issue.

The prosecution alleged that when the complainant stepped in, Mani verbally abused him with vulgar expletives and caste-based slurs before returning with a billhook from his house and attacking him. The complainant suffered injuries to his forehead, nose and thumb, and subsequent CT scan findings confirmed a fracture of his nasal bone.

The trial court found Mani guilty under Sections 294(b) (obscenity), 326 (grievous hurt) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Subsequently, the Madras High Court acquitted him of the charges under the SC/ST Act but affirmed his convictions under the IPC.

Mani then challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court.

What SC said

While examining his conviction for obscenity, the apex court observed that the law does not classify every abusive or vulgar remark as obscene.

The Bench said that for words to fall within the ambit of Section 294(b) of the IPC, they must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have the tendency to deprave or corrupt those exposed to them. The court also noted that it must be established that the utterance caused annoyance to others.

While examining the legal principles to the facts of the case, the apex court concluded that, even if the prosecution's allegations were accepted in full, the language allegedly used by Mani amounted only to abusive or vulgar remarks and did not meet the legal threshold for the offence of obscenity.

“In the present case, during altercation, the appellant allegedly uttered that “Hey Motherf****r! You son of a w***e! Are you coming in support of your elder sister's son? Just f**k off, you ‘Kurutha’ F****r.." Such words, howsoever abusive, unpalatable or uncivil, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 294(b) IPC… Further, it is nobody’s case that use of such words caused annoyance to others in a public place, which is a mandatory ingredient of the Section,” the Court stated, the report noted.

The court also acquitted Mani of the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) of the IPC. It observed that the mere use of threatening words during a quarrel does not constitute criminal intimidation unless the prosecution establishes that the accused intended to create fear or coerce the victim into performing, or abstaining from performing, a particular act.

However, the Bench upheld Mani's conviction under Section 326 of the IPC for causing grievous hurt. It noted that the medical records supported the complainant's version that Mani had attacked him with a billhook, causing a fracture to his nasal bone, an injury that clearly qualified as grievous hurt under the law.