Calling Someone 'Bas**rd' Not Offence Of Obscenity Under S.294 IPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 6) observed that mere abusive or vulgar language, without a sexual or prurient element, does not constitute an offence of obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the conviction of two accused under Section 294(b) IPC, who had allegedly used the word “bastard” during a heated altercation arising out of a family property dispute.

“…mere use of the word 'bastard', by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person. More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations. We are, therefore, of the view that conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.”, the Court observed.

The term 'Obscene' is undefined in the penal code, however in Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., the Court said that “Obscenity relates to material that arouses sexual and lustful thoughts, which is not at all the effect of the abusive language or profanities that have been employed in the episode.”

Reiterating the law laid down in Apoorva Arora (supra), the judgment authored by Justice Misra said that mere use of abusive language without the presence of a sexual element would not amount to doing an act of obscenity.

“…vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity. While a person may find vulgar and expletive-filled language to be distasteful, unpalatable, uncivil, and improper, that by itself is not sufficient to be “obscene”.”, the Court quoted the observation from Apoorva Arora (supra).

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Use of abusive language — Mere use of the word "bastard" during a heated conversation does not per se amount to obscenity — Supreme Court held that "obscenity" relates to material that has the potential to appeal to the prurient interest or arouse sexual/lustful thoughts - While vulgarity or profanities may be distasteful, unpalatable, or evoke disgust, they do not automatically satisfy the legal threshold of being "obscene" under Section 294 - Given modern contemporary mores, the use of such words in the heat of a moment does not sustain a conviction for obscenity. [Paras 19, 20]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304 Part II — Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder — Sentence Reduction — Where an incident arose from a boundary dispute between close relatives, was preceded by an altercation, and the fatal injury was caused by a solitary blow using a log picked up from the spot (not a dangerous weapon) in the heat of the moment, Supreme Court reduced the sentence from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment - Appellant cannot be held liable for culpable homicide with the aid of Section 34 when there is no evidence of exhortation or shared intention to cause death - The mere fact that A-1 initiated an attack (which resulted in non-grievous injuries to a third party) does not establish common intention for the fatal blow delivered independently by another accused (A-2). [Relied on Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2024) 6 SCC 181; Para 21-27]

Cause Title: SIVAKUMAR VERSUS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.