Holding that "use of mere swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives, however distasteful or uncivil they may be, cannot be equated with obscenity", the Supreme Court has ruled that abusive or vulgar language by itself does not constitute the offence of obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court clarified that obscenity in law is distinct from vulgarity, abuse or profanity and requires proof that the words are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have a tendency to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by a 70-year-old Tamil Nadu man convicted in a case arising out of a land dispute.

The Court set aside his conviction under Sections 294(b) (uttering obscene words in a public place) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) IPC, while affirming his conviction under Section 326 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon. Considering the appellant's age, health condition and the fact that the incident stemmed from a land dispute, the Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed him to pay a fine of ₹50,000.

The prosecution alleged that during an altercation over a land dispute in August 2017, the appellant abused the complainant with vulgar language and assaulted him with a billhook, causing multiple injuries, including a fractured nasal bone. While the trial court convicted him under the IPC as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Madras High Court later acquitted him of the offences under the SC/ST Act but upheld his conviction under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC.

Examining the ingredients of Section 294 IPC, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must establish two essential requirements: first, that obscene words were uttered in or near a public place; and second, that such utterance caused annoyance to others.

Drawing a distinction between obscenity and vulgarity, the bench observed:

"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."

The Court explained that words which are merely abusive or offensive may evoke disgust, revulsion or shock, but do not become obscene in the eyes of law merely for that reason. To attract Section 294 IPC, the words must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and possess the tendency to deprave and corrupt those exposed to them. It also found that there was no evidence in the present case that the alleged utterances caused annoyance to others in a public place, which is a mandatory ingredient of the offence.

In arriving at this conclusion, the bench surveyed several landmark decisions on obscenity. It referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965), which held that obscenity is material that tends to "deprave and corrupt" susceptible minds. It also relied on Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra (1969), which recognised that standards of obscenity depend on the morality of contemporary society, and Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014), where the Court adopted the "community standards" test in place of the earlier Hicklin test.

The bench further relied on Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra (1985), which distinguished vulgarity from obscenity and held that vulgar language may arouse disgust but does not necessarily have a depraving effect. It also cited S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), Madhanagopal v. Lalitha (2022), Apoorva Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) and Sivakumar v. State (2026), all of which reiterate that abusive, profane or vulgar language, without a lascivious or sexually depraving element, does not by itself amount to obscenity.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the abusive expressions allegedly used by the appellant, even if accepted as true, were at best vulgar or abusive and did not satisfy the legal requirements of obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC. Accordingly, it set aside his conviction under that provision.

The Court also acquitted the appellant of the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) IPC. Relying on Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), it held that mere threatening words uttered during an altercation are insufficient unless there is evidence that they were intended to cause alarm or compel the complainant to do or omit an act. Since there was no such evidence on record, the conviction under Section 506(ii) could not be sustained.

However, the bench upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC. Referring to Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005), it reiterated that the offence requires voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon. The complainant had suffered a fractured nasal bone, which falls within the definition of "grievous hurt" under Section 320 IPC, and the injury was proved to have been caused by a billhook. The medical evidence fully corroborated the eyewitness testimony, the Court held, leaving no reason to interfere with the conviction under Section 326 IPC.

Taking note that the incident arose out of a land dispute between the appellant and the complainant's family, and considering that the appellant is about 70 years old and in poor health, the Court directed that he would undergo imprisonment only till the rising of the court. It also enhanced the fine to ₹50,000, payable within two months.

Case : Mani @ Subramaniyam v State

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 687

Click here to read the judgment