Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal dismissed a petition filed against the Chief Editor of Dainik Bhaskar newspaper over allegations of publishing an advertisement featuring the image of a nude woman. The petitioner had sought criminal action under the Indian Penal Code and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. The Court observed that while the woman’s body in the advertisement appeared unclothed, the breast and genital areas were sufficiently blurred, with text printed over them. Finding no obscenity or intent to corrupt readers, the Bench upheld the lower courts’ findings and dismissed the petition.

The petitioner, Nagendra Singh Gaharwar, had filed a private complaint alleging that Dainik Bhaskar, published and printed under the supervision of its Chief Editor and Printer, Manmohan Agrawal, printed an almost nude photograph of a woman in its Rewa edition dated January 4, 2012. He contended that the publication amounted to obscenity as defined under Sections 292 and 293 of the IPC and violated provisions of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. He argued that the image, appearing in a movie advertisement, was published for purely commercial gain and did not fall under any statutory exception.

Also Read: Gaps In Investigation, Missing Witness Testimony Led To Doubt’: Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Raping, Robbing And Killing 85-Year-Old Woman

The complaint was initially dismissed by the trial court, which found no material suggesting that the publication was obscene. The petitioner’s criminal revision against this order was also rejected by the revisional court on February 21, 2014. Subsequently, he filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking to quash the dismissal orders and to direct further proceedings against the respondent.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the photograph—depicting a woman without clothes—constituted an offence under the cited provisions. Counsel for the respondent, however, maintained that the image was part of a bona fide advertisement, with the visible portions of the woman’s body blurred and overlaid with text. It was argued that the photograph, when viewed as a whole, did not appeal to prurient interests or offend public morality.

After hearing both sides, Justice Paliwal identified the sole issue: whether the publication of the advertisement in question constituted an offence under Sections 292 and 293 IPC and Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

The Court referred extensively to judicial precedents on obscenity, including Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra, Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, and Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal. Quoting the Supreme Court’s formulation of the test for obscenity, the judgment recorded: “What is obscenity has not been defined either in Section 292 IPC or in any of the statutes prohibiting and penalising... obscene matters. The test that has been generally applied is whether the matter charged as obscenity has the tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.”

Justice Paliwal observed that Indian courts have consistently endorsed the ‘community standards test’ in determining obscenity, noting that artistic or literary works cannot be condemned solely for containing sexual or nude depictions. The judgment cited Aveek Sarkar to state: “A picture of a nude or semi-nude woman, as such, cannot per se be called obscene unless it has the tendency to arouse the feeling of or revealing an overt sexual desire.”

Applying these principles, the Court reviewed the advertisement, which bore the caption “GET READY TO SIZZLE” and featured a female figure with blurred body parts and overlaid text. Justice Paliwal recorded: “Though the body of the lady shown in the advertisement does not have any clothes, the breast and genitals are sufficiently blurred. Some words are also written in bold letters on the genitals part of the lady.”

The Court further reasoned that the photograph did not exhibit any element designed to corrupt or deprave the moral outlook of readers: “If the photograph of the lady published in Dainik Bhaskar news paper, Rewa edition, is seen from any angle, it cannot be said that it is suggestive of deprave minds or designed to excite sexual passion in persons who are likely to look at them and see them.”

Justice Paliwal held that the concept of obscenity evolves with social change, referencing the Supreme Court’s view in Ajay Goswami that “nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene” and that adult readers cannot be restricted to content suitable only for children. He also cited Aveek Sarkar, where the Supreme Court upheld a similar publication involving a semi-nude photograph of tennis player Boris Becker, holding that it was not obscene when viewed in context.

It noted: “In the instant case, breasts as well as genitals of the lady are not visible at all... the photograph has no tendency to deprave or corrupt the minds of people in whose hands the newspaper would fall.”

Also Read: MP High Court Grants Maintenance to Wife Pursuing MD in Homeopathy; Says Husband Obligated to Support and Empower Her Education

Justice Paliwal held: “Further, perusal of order passed by the learned trial Court dated 06.11.2012 as well as order passed by the learned Revisional Court dated 21.02.2014 reveals that both the courts have discussed the matter in detail and have examined facts/evidence of the case in the light of the legal principles applicable to the facts  of the case. No illegality appears to have been committed by the courts in rejecting the complaint/dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.”

“Resultantly, in view of the discussion in the forgoing paras, no grounds whatsoever are made out to interfere in the findings recorded by the trial Court in order dated 06.11.2012 as well as order passed by the Revisional Court dated 21.02.2014.”

“Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed off accordingly.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri Nagendra Singh Gaharwar, Advocate

For the Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Mishra, Advocate

Case Title: Nagendra Singh Gaharwar v. Manmohan Agrawal, Chief Editor, Publisher and Printer, Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper
Case Number: M.Cr.C. No. 4891 of 2014
Bench: Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal