Whoever, to the annoyance of others, (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation: Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code explains:
Whoever, to the annoyance of others
- does any obscene act in any public place, or
- sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words in or near any public place,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.
Essential Ingredients
For the act to amount to an offence under Section 294 IPC, there are four elements which need to be satisfied:
- Obscene Act or Words: The obscene act performed or words uttered must be obscene. Courts have defined obscenity as any material or conduct which is offensive to the modesty, decency or morals of society.
- Requirement of Public Place: The act must take place in a public place, or if not, at least immediately adjacent to a public place, in which it can be seen/heard by others.
- Annoyance of others: The element of annoyance must be proven, and that the obscene act or words annoy others in attendance. Annoyance is very important and must be proven.
- Mens Rea (Intention/Knowledge): The person must have knowledge or intention that his act is obscene and likely to annoy others.
Punishment
- Imprisonment of one of any description (simple or rigorous) up to 3 months, or
- Fine, or
- Imprisonment and Fine.
The punishment is comparatively lighter than other offences under IPC, as Section 294 penalizes trivial acts that harm society’s interests and morals.
Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws.
- Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965): The supreme court explained that the test for obscenity in literature is based on its tendency to deprave and corrupt those exposed to such influence.
- Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014): The Court adopted the “contemporary community standards test” for deciding obscenity and observed that mere nudity does not violate obscenity.
- Pawan Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration) (1987): It was held that obscene acts must necessarily annoy others in the public space to amount to an offence under section 294.
- Narendra H. Khurana v. Commissioner of Police (2004): The Bombay High Court suggested that obscene songs, played publicly during festivals or processions and annoying to others qualify under this section.
Examples of Offences
- Making sexually explicit gestures in a public park.
- Singing lewd songs loudly and in public near a school, temple, or street.
- Singing obscene words through a loudspeaker at a public function.
- Performing or dancing obscene acts on the street causing annoyance to the public.
Notes
Most states classify section 294 as a cognizable and bailable offence, meaning that police officer can register a case, but the offender can easily obtain bail from a magistrate. The main purpose of the section is to protect public morality and inconvenience by obscene action.
Obscenity is not a specific term and varies according to the period of time, culture, and community standards in which a piece of material is presented or viewed. Courts have commonly applied the Hicklin test (the old-redundant approach), and later, have applied the community standards test, to assess each case.