Any perceived obscenity in book or work of art is brought upon by the viewer: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court said on Saturday that any perceived obscenity in any book or work of art felt by a viewer is brought upon by the viewer himself..Speaking at a literature festival organised by The Hindu in Chennai, which he had joined online, Justice Kaul made the statement in reference to his 2016 judgment that 'resurrected' author Perumal Murugan and his book Madhorubagan.Both the book and its author had become subjects of attack by caste groups that claimed that the story contained obscenities, particularly in reference to the Gounder caste. As the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Justice Kaul had upheld Murugan's right to freedom of speech and expression and had famously said that if readers didn't like the book, they should shut it and throw it away."The judgement of course rejected such allegations. It held that the alleged obscenity which might or might not exist, was not the central theme of the novel. The perceived obscenity in a book or work of art is brought upon a viewer by the viewer himself. The constitutional principles of freedom of speech and expression weigh overwhelmingly in favour of the artist and cannot be disturbed," Justice Kaul said..He went on to say that the 2016 judgment, as well his previous judgments upholding the freedom of speech and expression in cases of late author and journalist Khushwant Singh and painter MF Husain had led him to introspect why authors or artists who chose to question the status quo did so."What could be the benefit, especially if it comes at such a grave personal cost, as was the case with Professor Murugan, and very recently, with Salman Rushdie? Why did the makers of our Constitution, in line with democratic principles from across the world, chose to protect and grant privilege to such works, especially when the ramification of provocative art can be social disorder and at times even violence?" the judge asked.He said that he believed that the act of literature emerged from an Intellectual and cultural world that was full of contradictions and was always in a flux. And writers such as Murugan had the capability to "mould a new humanity from the clay, to reshape society, chipping away at the existent social structure bit by bit.".He said that such inquiry also made him realise that just as authors were involved in the making and unmaking of society, in a courtroom, the judge became the author. Judges too seek to fashion, in their own small way, the great mass of humanity that they encounter in the court room. Every decision was an attempt by the judge to understand how social institutions should operate and how they could make them more workable within the framework of our constitutional principles, Justice Kaul said. He quoted professor Robert Cover on the cost of the violent propensity inherent in law and how it was brought out in interpretation of the law. Justice Kaul said that such violence existed even in the most prosaic of cases. "In one stroke of the pen, somebody loses their freedom, property changes hands, one parent gains custody of a child at the cost of the other parent," he said. .In their endeavour to interpret laws, judges, much like authors, take their cue from the external world, Justice Kaul said. "Upon this world, they impose their own understanding and experience. Judges, like authors, are neither a sovereign, nor merely an agent," he said.