Case Comment: Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar V. State of Maharashtra
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.8.6Abstract
On May 8 2008,Maqbool Fida Hussein, was acquitted by the Delhi High Court, in what was considered to be a landmark judgment on obscenity. The artist had painted ‘Bharatmata’ in the nude and had at various instances in the past, painted Hindu goddesses in obscene postures. The Delhi High Court held that the aesthetics of the painting and the social message it carried, far outweighed the ‘obscenity’ in it. The Bench believed that art ought not to be chained by anti-obscenity laws, if it is intended for the welfare of society and aimed to convey a social message and not the sexual arousal of the audienceReferences
MF Hussain v. Raj Kumar Pandey, 2008 CrLJ 4107 (Del).
Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, (2007) I SCC 143; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR2015SC1523; Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, (2006) 8 SCC 433.
Devidas, (2015) 6 SCC 1.
Using Obscene Language Against Historically Respectable Personalities Cannot Be Allowed in the Name of Artistic Freedom, (Dec. 24, 2015) available athttp://www.livelaw.in/using-obscene-language-against-historically-respected-personalities-cannot-be-allowed-in-the-name-of-artistic-freedom-critical-thinking-or-creativity-sc/
Mumbai Mirror, My Poem talks about how we have destroyed Gandhi’s values, May 16, 2015, available at
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/cover-story/My-poem-talks-about-how-we-have-destroyed-Gandhis-values/articleshow/47304204.cms (Dec. 26, 2015).
A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 881.
Supra note 10.
ChandrakantKalyandasKakodkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 S.C.C. 687.
The State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, 1952 A.I.R. 329.
Aveek Sarkar, 2005 (2) C.H.N. 694.
MADHAVIGORADIA DIVAN, FACETS OF MEDIA LAW, 80, (Eastern Book Company, 2nd ed. 2013); RanjitUdeshiv. State of Maharahstra, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 881.
Director General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 433.
A.I.R. 258.
(1970) 2 S.C.C. 780.
S.C.C. (5) 550.
Khushboo v. Kaniammal,(2010) 5 SCC 3346.
K.A.Abbas v. Union of India and Another, (1970) 2 SCC 780.
Samresh Bose, 1986 A.I.R. 967.
(2007) 1 S.C.C. 143.
Supra note 11.
Supra note 11.
Supra note 5.
Supra note 5.
Supra note 27.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
Gautam Bhatia, Obscenity: The Supreme Court discards the Hicklin test, available at https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/obscenity-the-supreme-court-discards-the-hicklin-test/(Dec. 25, 2015).
Supra note 27.
A.I.R. 967.
(2010) 5 S.C.C. 3346.
Ajay Goswami v. Union of India & Others, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 493.
Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 433.
Khushboo, (2010) 5 S.C.C. 3346.
Supra note 5.
Supra note 5.
At ¶105, Misra J. in Devidas.
First Post, Fan Bhakti is killing Indian democracy, April 1, 2013, available at
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/political-fan-bhakti-is-killing-indian-democracy-681794.html (Dec. 25, 2015).
Mumbai Mirror, My Poem talks about how we have destroyed Gandhi’s values, May 16, 2015, available at
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/cover-story/My-poem-talks-about-how-we-have-destroyed-Gandhis-values/articleshow/47304204.cms (Dec. 25, 2015).
Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Ananda Patwardhan, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 433.
Supra note 5.
