Relationship Between Decency and Morality

Decency and morality are abstract yet significant principles that influence legal systems across the globe. In India, these concepts hold a critical place, especially concerning the regulation of content in public spaces and on online platforms. The Indian legal framework seeks to balance the protection of societal values with the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly freedom of speech and expression. This balance becomes even more nuanced with the rise of digital media, where content dissemination occurs rapidly and globally.

This article delves into the legal constructs of decency and morality in India, focusing on their definitions, interpretations by courts and how they are regulated through various laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Information Technology (IT) Act and specific statutes like the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. We will also explore the implications of obscenity, vulgarity and indecency in legal terms and how these are assessed in the context of evolving societal norms.

Defining Decency and Morality in Legal Terms

The terms decency and morality are often intertwined but carry distinct legal meanings. Morality refers to the collective ethical standards that guide societal behaviour, while decency pertains to the norms governing what is considered appropriate behaviour, particularly in public discourse and media.

Morality: Morality, in a legal sense, refers to principles that guide individuals on what is considered right or wrong based on society’s ethical and moral framework. This can vary across cultures and jurisdictions, making its application in law somewhat subjective. In India, morality plays a significant role in shaping laws related to personal conduct, content regulation and public behaviour.

Decency: Decency, on the other hand, focuses more on appropriateness, especially regarding expressions, behaviour and content shared in public. It often reflects a society’s expectations concerning what is deemed respectable and acceptable. Indian laws frequently use decency as a criterion to evaluate content, especially in media, advertising and entertainment.

The Supreme Court of India has often deliberated on the fluid nature of these concepts, stating that standards of decency and morality are not static. They evolve with societal norms, as indicated in cases like Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodar vs The State Of Maharashtra (1970 AIR 1390), where the court noted that “the concept of obscenity would differ from country to country depending on the standards of morals of contemporary society.”

The Interplay Between Decency, Morality and Freedom of Speech

In India, freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which includes grounds such as public order, decency and morality. This creates a delicate balance between individual rights and societal interests.

When a conflict arises between decency/morality and freedom of speech, Indian courts have generally taken a contextual approach. For instance, in K.A. Abbas vs. Union of India (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the role of censorship in films to prevent the exhibition of indecent or immoral content. However, it also emphasised the need for a reasonable and balanced approach that does not unduly infringe on the right to free speech.

Similarly, in Bobby Art International vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996), the court allowed the screening of a film that dealt with sensitive issues like caste oppression and sexual violence, noting that the film’s message was important and the depiction of violence and nudity was integral to its narrative, rather than being obscene or indecent.

Obscenity and Indecency: Legal Interpretations

One of the most debated aspects of decency and morality in Indian law is the concept of obscenity. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses obscenity under Section 292, which prohibits the sale, distribution or exhibition of obscene materials, such as books, drawings or representations. But what qualifies as obscene?

Historically, Indian courts relied on the Hicklin Test (established in the English case Regina v. Hicklin (1868)), which defined obscenity based on whether the content could corrupt individuals susceptible to immoral influences, such as children. This test, however, faced criticism for being too restrictive and for evaluating content in isolation, without considering the work as a whole.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of India moved away from the Hicklin Test and adopted the Community Standards Test in the case of Aveek Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal. The court held that the assessment of obscenity must consider the broader context and societal standards rather than focusing on isolated portions of a work. The judgement aligned Indian obscenity law with the progressive approach taken by courts in countries like Canada and the United States, where the community’s evolving standards play an important role in determining what is obscene.

Similarly, vulgarity is not necessarily considered obscene in Indian law. In Samaresh Bose vs. Amal Mitra (1986 AIR 967), the court differentiated between vulgarity and obscenity, ruling that while vulgar content may evoke disgust or revulsion, it does not automatically deprave or corrupt the audience’s morals. This distinction is essential in cases where content may be offensive or in poor taste but does not necessarily violate legal standards of decency or morality.

Laws Governing Decency and Morality in India

Several laws regulate decency and morality in India, particularly concerning content in public spaces and online platforms. Some of the most relevant statutes include:

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

• Section 292: Prohibits the sale, distribution and exhibition of obscene materials. The section defines obscenity and sets penalties for violations.
• Section 293: Prohibits the sale of obscene materials to individuals under 20 years of age.
• Section 294: Prohibits obscene acts or songs in public spaces, criminalising behaviour that offends public decency.

The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

This law specifically addresses the depiction of women in an indecent or derogatory manner in advertisements, publications or any form of media. The statute aims to protect women from objectification and ensure that content adheres to societal standards of decency and morality.

The Information Technology Act, 2000

• Section 67: Prohibits the transmission or publication of obscene material in electronic form. The section is relevant for regulating online content, particularly on social media and digital platforms.
• Section 67A: Imposes stricter penalties for publishing sexually explicit material in electronic form.

Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Code, 2021

These guidelines, issued under the Information Technology Act, impose obligations on social media platforms, digital news publishers and other intermediaries to ensure that their content adheres to decency and morality standards. Platforms are required to have mechanisms to filter and remove obscene, defamatory or indecent content and they can be held liable if they fail to act on such content.

Case Laws and Judicial Precedents

Over the years, Indian courts have developed a nuanced understanding of decency and morality through landmark judgements. Some notable cases include:

1. Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra (1965): This case dealt with the sale of a book deemed obscene under Section 292 of the IPC. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that even though the book in question (Lady Chatterley’s Lover) had literary merit, it still had the potential to corrupt the morals of susceptible readers.
2. Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodar vs. State of Maharashtra (1970): In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the concept of obscenity is relative and must be evaluated based on the contemporary standards of the community. What is considered obscene in one country or era may not be deemed so in another.
3. Aveek Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (2014): This case marked a shift from the Hicklin Test to the Community Standards Test in assessing obscenity. The Supreme Court acquitted the defendants in this case, who had published a nude photograph of a famous tennis player, holding that the image, in its context, was not obscene.
4. Samaresh Bose vs. Amal Mitra (1986): The Supreme Court ruled that vulgarity does not necessarily amount to obscenity, providing a more lenient interpretation of content that may be offensive but not legally obscene.

Digital Media and Decency: Challenges and Implications

The rapid growth of digital media has raised new challenges for regulating decency and morality. Online platforms like social media, streaming services and digital news outlets allow for instant dissemination of content, often bypassing traditional censorship mechanisms. As a result, the legal framework governing decency and morality has had to evolve to address issues related to online content.

One of the critical regulatory frameworks in this regard is the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Code, 2021, which places specific obligations on online platforms to ensure that their content adheres to decency and morality standards. These guidelines require platforms to have content moderation mechanisms, report objectionable content and cooperate with law enforcement agencies.

A notable example of the application of these guidelines occurred in 2022 when the Indian government directed social media platforms to remove a perfume advertisement that was widely criticised for promoting sexual violence. This incident underscored the importance of regulatory oversight in maintaining decency and morality in digital advertising.

Strict Liability for Platforms

While online platforms enjoy certain legal protections, such as safe harbour provisions under the Information Technology Act, they are not immune to liability when it comes to objectionable advertisements. Platforms are subject to strict liability if they fail to filter or remove indecent content, even if they lack actual knowledge of the content’s nature.

In Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that lack of actual knowledge of the obscene content does not absolve the platform of liability. This precedent means that platforms must exercise due diligence and implement robust content moderation systems to avoid legal consequences.

Conclusion

The legal landscape surrounding decency and morality in India is complex and continually evolving. As societal standards shift and technology advances, the challenge for lawmakers and courts is to balance individual rights with societal values. While the law provides clear guidelines on what constitutes obscene, indecent or immoral content, the interpretation of these terms is fluid and influenced by contemporary societal norms.

For online advertisers and content creators, the stakes are high. Non-compliance with decency and morality laws can lead not only to legal penalties but also to reputational damage. As India continues to navigate the challenges of regulating digital content, the role of decency and morality in shaping public discourse will remain pivotal, ensuring that the dignity and values of society are upheld.