As an offshoot of a completely frivolous thread here starring
I was able to get the relevant section, section 292, which for the curious defines obscene as “… shall be deemed to be obscene it it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.”
As it can be read, the definition is completely interpretive in nature. We had learnt the interpretations in Forensic Medicine, I will let pass the anatomic details BUT a single line interpretation in my understanding is “Top 1/3rd is expose able and bottom 1/3rd definitely OK as long as it is in such a place where minors cannot see it BUT expose the frontal mid 1/3rd and you are in trouble with the law!!”
We accepted this as gospel truth since its implication amounted to nothing more than a question in Viva Voce, but since yesterday I have been wondering who/what/where was it decided to be interpreted as such?
Which are the relevant cases and the decisions? As far as I can recall right from the days of Protima Bedi nobody has been really punished under this law ….
There are more equally ambiguous laws regarding improper depiction of women etc. Definitely human anatomy is not at all ambiguous … … Well at least in most cases!
Any lawyer reading this?