BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1965 SC 881
BailableCognizable: CognizableAny Magistrate
THE STATUTE
Original Text
A book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
Simplified
Section 292 targeted the distribution of obscene literature and material. The Hicklin Test ('tendency to deprave and corrupt') was applied for decades. The section creates important exceptions for works proved to be in the public good (science, literature, art, learning) and for ancient sculptures in public places. Post-digital revolution, Section 292 prosecutions for physical obscene materials have declined, with the IT Act (Section 67 — obscene electronic material; Section 67A — sexually explicit material) taking over for online content. The two provisions work in tandem — a website hosting obscene content can be prosecuted under both IPC 292 (the content) and IT Act 67 (the electronic publication).
Legal Evolution
Section 292 on obscene publications was modeled on the English Obscene Publications Act 1857 and the test for obscenity established in R v Hicklin (1868) — whether the material tends to deprave and corrupt those open to immoral influences. The Supreme Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965) adopted a modified Hicklin test for India. The provision has evolved significantly with the internet age and now coexists with the IT Act's provisions on online obscenity.
Landmark Precedents
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965)
RELEVANCE
Upheld conviction under Section 292 for selling Lady Chatterley's Lover — applied the Hicklin Test; established that obscenity is not protected by Article 19(1)(a).
Practical Scenarios
"Selling pornographic magazines or prints — Section 292."
"Exhibiting an obscene drawing with no artistic merit in a public space — Section 292."
Common Queries
Yes — there is an exception for publications proved to be justified for the public good (science, literature, art, or learning). Courts apply a contextual assessment of whether the work has genuine artistic/literary merit.