Samaresh Bose v Amal Mitra

Case Name: Samaresh Bose v Amal Mitra

Date of Judgement: 24th September 1985

Bench: Justices Amarendra Nath Sen and R.S. Pathak

Citations:

• 1986 AIR 967
• 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 17
• 1985 SCC (4) 289
• 1985 SCALE (2) 1225

The case of Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra is a landmark judgement that significantly impacted the interpretation of obscenity laws in India. The case revolves around the question of whether the Bengali novel Prajapati—written by Samaresh Bose and published in the Bengali journal Desh—contained obscene content under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case not only delved into the complexities of legal definitions of obscenity but also addressed the balance between artistic expression and the protection of public morals.

Facts of Samaresh Bose v Amal Mitra

Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra emerged from a complaint filed by Amal Mitra, a young advocate, on 2nd February 1968. He alleged that the novel Prajapati, published in the Sarodiya Desh issue of the Bengali journal Desh, was obscene and had the potential to corrupt public morals. The novel, set in contemporary Bengali society, tells the story of a character named Sukhen, who narrates his own fall from a life of idealism to one filled with vice, indulgence in wine, and immoral acts, especially involving women.

The work was published in Sarodiya Desh, an annual pooja number of Desh, a highly regarded Bengali journal with a wide readership across India. The novel had a significant cultural impact, as it was read by individuals across different age groups, including teenagers, young adults, and older readers.

Amal Mitra’s complaint argued that the novel’s content—comprising crude language, sexual references, and morally controversial themes—was not suitable for the general public and had the potential to corrupt its readers, especially the younger generation. Based on this complaint, a criminal case was filed, and the author, Samaresh Bose, along with Sitangshu Kumar Dasgupta (the publisher of Desh), faced charges under Section 292 IPC for the distribution of obscene content.

Initial Proceedings and Lower Court Judgement

The case was first heard in the Chief Presidency Magistrate Court in Calcutta. The trial judge assessed the novel’s content by reading it multiple times with an open mind. The judge also considered expert opinions from literary figures like Professor Budhadev Bose and Dr. Naresh Chandra Guha, who testified that the language used by the author was unconventional but necessary to express the character’s moral and social decline. These experts argued that the words used might be vulgar but were in line with the novel’s theme and its literary merit.

However, despite the expert testimony, the trial judge ruled that the novel contained obscene content, as defined under Section 292 IPC. The judge concluded that the novel had a corrupting influence on readers and, therefore, convicted both the author and the publisher. They were fined Rs. 201 each, with the alternative punishment of simple imprisonment for two months in case of default. Furthermore, the trial court ordered the destruction of pages 174 to 226 of the Sarodiya Desh journal that contained the novel, once the appeal period had passed.

Appeal to the High Court

The accused, Samaresh Bose and Sitangshu Kumar Dasgupta, appealed the conviction in the Calcutta High Court. The complainant, Amal Mitra, also filed a criminal revision seeking the enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused. The High Court heard both the appeal and revision together in 1972.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences of the trial court. However, the High Court modified the order for the destruction of the journal pages, noting that since the novel had also been published as a separate book, appropriate action under Section 521 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be taken in relation to the book’s copies.

Samaresh Bose v Amal Mitra Judgement

The appellants, after obtaining special leave from the Supreme Court, challenged the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s judgement in Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra was significant in shaping the interpretation of obscenity under Indian law.

The Court carefully examined the issue of whether Prajapati could be classified as obscene under Section 292 IPC. The Supreme Court took into account the literary value of the work, the context of the language used, and the impact it had on the readership. The Court did not solely rely on the literal interpretation of the novel but considered the author’s intent and the social and artistic value of the content.

Legal Principles and Rulings

The Role of the Court in Judging Obscenity

The Supreme Court laid down important principles regarding the role of the judiciary in judging obscenity. It emphasized that the decision on whether a work is obscene is not based solely on oral evidence but must also involve a comprehensive analysis of the content of the work itself. The Court further stated that while expert testimony may be useful, the final judgement rests with the Court, which must assess whether the work offends the provisions of Section 292 IPC.

The Court also clarified that, unlike in England where the decision of obscenity rests with a jury, in India, it is the responsibility of the Court to make an objective assessment. This assessment should take into account the work in its entirety and the specific passages that are being challenged as obscene.

The Concept of Obscenity

In Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the difference between vulgarity and obscenity. The Court distinguished vulgarity as being crude or offensive language that may cause disgust or discomfort but does not necessarily corrupt the morals of the reader. On the other hand, obscenity involves material that has the potential to deprive and corrupt the minds of those exposed to it, particularly those susceptible to immoral influences.

The Court further emphasized that while a work might contain vulgar content, it is not automatically obscene unless it can be shown that it is likely to deprave and corrupt readers.

Artistic and Literary Merit

The Court recognized the importance of considering the artistic and literary merit of a work before determining whether it is obscene. In the case of Prajapati, the Court observed that the novel had significant social and literary relevance. It portrayed the moral and emotional struggles of its central character, Sukhen, and reflected the social conditions of the time. Despite containing unconventional language and references to sex, the Court found that the novel was not obscene in the context of Indian society.

The Supreme Court also noted that literary works often explore complex human emotions, and the inclusion of sexual references or the use of unrefined language should not automatically lead to an obscenity charge. The Court further stressed that the overall intent and context of the work should be considered rather than isolated passages.

Obscenity in Relation to Public Morality

The judgement also highlighted that the question of obscenity is subjective and influenced by the prevailing standards of morality in society. What is considered obscene in one country or culture may not be viewed similarly in another. Therefore, the Court advised judges to place themselves in the position of both the author and the readers to assess whether the work would corrupt or deprive public morals.

The Court suggested that the judge should examine the work in question from the perspective of the author’s intent and the likely impact on readers of different age groups. The Court also pointed out that the mere inclusion of references to sex in a work does not make it obscene. If this were the case, adolescents would be unable to read most novels, as they would be considered inappropriate due to their mention of sexual themes.

Conclusion

In the case of Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, the Supreme Court clarified the legal standards for determining obscenity in literary works under Section 292 IPC. It emphasized the need for a holistic and context-based approach when evaluating works of literature. 

The judgement made it clear that while vulgarity might offend, it does not necessarily meet the legal threshold for obscenity. It reinforced the importance of artistic expression and literary merit in the assessment of works that might be challenged for their moral content.