Can calling someone a ‘motherf****ker’ amount to obscenity? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court on Friday held that abusive language and vulgar expletives, however offensive or uncivil, will not amount to the offence of obscenity under criminal law unless they are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have the tendency to deprave or corrupt those exposed to them [Mani v. State].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi made the observation while partly allowing the appeal of a man who was convicted for obscenity for using the words “motherf***ker”, “son of a wh*re” and other vulgar expletives during an altercation over a land dispute.

“Let’s be clear, 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...Words which are merely vulgar or abusive may evoke a feeling of disgust, revulsion or shock, but that by itself does not make them obscene in law,” the Court noted.

However, the Court upheld his conviction for causing grievous hurt with a billhook after finding that he had fractured the complainant’s nasal bone. It reduced his sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed him to pay a fine of ₹50,000.

The case arose out of a dispute over agricultural land in Tamil Nadu in August 2017. According to the prosecution, an altercation first broke out between the appellant-accused, one Mani and the complainant’s brother-in-law over the land. Two days later, Mani allegedly quarrelled with the complainant’s nephew over the same dispute.

When the complainant intervened, Mani allegedly abused him using vulgar expletives and caste-based slurs before fetching a billhook from his house and attacking him. The complainant sustained injuries to his forehead, nose and thumb. A CT scan later revealed that his nasal bone had been fractured.

The trial court convicted Mani under Sections 294(b) (obscenity), 326 (grievous hurt) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, besides provisions of 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 convictions under the IPC.

He then moved the Supreme Court.

On the conviction for obscenity, the Supreme Court said the law does not treat every abusive or vulgar expression as obscene.

The Bench explained that for words to amount to obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC, they must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have the tendency to deprave and corrupt those exposed to them. It must also be shown that the utterance caused annoyance to others.

Applying those principles to the case, the Bench held that even if the prosecution’s allegations were accepted in full, the words attributed to Mani were merely abusive or vulgar and did not satisfy the ingredients of the offence of obscenity.

“In the present case, during altercation, the appellant allegedly uttered that “Hey Motherfucker! You son of a whore! Are you coming in support of your elder sister's son? Just fuck off, you ‘Kurutha’ Fucker.." Such words, howsoever abusive, unpalatable or uncivil, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 294(b) IPC… Further, it is nobody’s case that use of such words caused annoyance to others in a public place, which is a mandatory ingredient of the Section,” the Court noted.

The Court also set aside Mani’s conviction for criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) IPC.

It held that merely using threatening words during the course of an altercation is not enough to constitute the offence unless the prosecution proves that the accused intended to cause alarm or compel the victim to do or refrain from doing a particular act.

However, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the conviction under Section 326 IPC. It noted that the medical evidence corroborated the complainant’s testimony that he had been assaulted with a billhook and had suffered a fractured nasal bone, which squarely fell within the definition of grievous hurt.

Taking into account that the incident arose out of a land dispute, as well as the appellant’s age of around 70 years and his health condition, the Court modified his sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. It also directed him to pay a fine of ₹50,000 within two months.

[Read Judgment]