1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 904 OF 2018  

N. Radhakrishnan      …Petitioner(s)  @ Radhakrishnan Varenickal

VERSUS

Union of India and others …Respondent(s)  

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, CJI

A writer or an author, while choosing a mode of expression,

be it a novel or a novella, an epic or an anthology of poems, a

play  or  a  playlet,  a  short story  or  a long  one,  an essay  or  a

statement of description or, for that matter, some other form, has

the right to exercise his liberty to the fullest unless it falls foul of

any prescribed  law that is  constitutionally  valid. It is  because

freedom of expression is extremely dear to a civilized society.   It

holds it close to its heart and would abhorrently look at any step

taken to create even the slightest concavity in the said freedom. It

2

may be noted here that  we are  in this  writ  petition,  preferred

under Article 32 of the Constitution, dealing with creativity and

its impact and further considering the prayer for banning a book

on the foundation that a part of it is indecent and offends the

sentiments of women of a particular faith.   Having said this, we

would like to refer to two authorities highlighting the importance

of creativity and necessity of freedom of expression and how the

principle of pragmatic realism assures the said creative

independence as civilization, indubitably a progressive one,

perceives and eagerly desires for its accentuated protection,

nourishment and constant fostering. It is so because curtailment

of an author’s right to freedom of expression is a  matter of

serious concern.  

2. In  Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of

Maharashtra and others1, the Court, dealing with the meaning

of the words “poetic licence”, observed:­   

“… it can never remotely mean a licence as used or understood in the language of law. There is no authority  who gives a licence to a poet. These are words from the realm of literature. The poet assumes his own freedom which is allowed to him by the fundamental concept  of  poetry.  He  is free to  depart from reality; fly away from grammar; walk in glory by

1 (2015) 6 SCC 1

3

not following systematic metres; coin words at his own will; use archaic words to convey thoughts or attribute meanings; hide ideas beyond  myths which can be absolutely unrealistic; totally pave a path where neither rhyme  nor rhythm  prevail; can put serious ideas in satires, ifferisms, notorious repartees; take aid of analogies, metaphors, similes in his own style, compare like “life with sandwiches that is consumed everyday” or “life is like peeling of an onion”, or “society is like a stew”; define ideas that can balloon into  the sky never to come down;  cause violence  to logic at his own fancy; escape to the sphere of figurative truism; get engrossed in the “universal eye for resemblance”, and one can do nothing except writing a critical appreciation in his own manner and according to his understanding. When a poet says “I saw eternity yesterday night”, no reader would understand the term “eternity” in its  prosaic  sense. The Hamletian question has many a layer; each is free to  confer  a  meaning;  be it traditional  or  modern or individualistic. No one can stop a dramatist or a poet or a writer to write freely expressing his thoughts, and similarly none can stop the critics to give their comments whatever its  worth.  One may concentrate on Classical facets and one may think at a metaphysical level or concentrate on Romanticism as is understood in the poems of Keats, Byron or Shelley or one  may dwell on  Nature and  write poems like William Wordsworth whose poems, say some, are didactic. One may also venture to compose like Alexander Pope or Dryden or get into individual modernism like Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot or Pablo Neruda. That is fundamentally what is meant by poetic licence.”

3. In Raj Kapoor and others v. State and others2, Krishna

Iyer, J., speaking for himself, while quashing the criminal

proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein for the

2 (1980) 1 SCC 43

4

production of the film, namely, ‘Satyam,  Sivam,  Sundaram’,

observed:­  

“12. … Jurisprudentially speaking, law, in the sense of command to do or not to do, must be a reflection of the community’s cultural norms, not the State’s regimentation of aesthetic expression or artistic creation. Here we will realise the superior jurisprudential value of  dharma, which is a beautiful blend of the sustaining sense of morality, right conduct, society’s enlightened consensus and the binding  force of  norms so woven as against  positive law in the Austinian sense, with an awesome halo and barren autonomy around the legislated text is fruitful area for creative exploration.  But morals made to measure by statute and court is risky operation with portentous  impact  on  fundamental freedoms,  and  in our constitutional order the root principle is liberty of expression and its reasonable control with the limits of ‘public order, decency or morality’. Here, social dynamics guides legal dynamics in the province of ‘policing’ art forms.”

[Emphasis added]   

4. The learned Judge further went on to say:­  

“15. … The relation between Reality and Relativity must haunt the Court’s evaluation of obscenity, expressed in society’s  pervasive  humanity,  not law’s penal prescriptions. Social scientists and spiritual scientists will broadly agree that man lives not alone by mystic squints, ascetic chants and austere abnegation but by luscious love of Beauty, sensuous joy of companionship and moderate non­denial of normal demands of the flesh. Extremes and excesses boomerang although some crazy artists and film directors do practise Oscar Wilde’s observation: ‘Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess’.

5

16. All these add up to one conclusion that finality and infallibility are beyond courts  which  must interpret and administer the law with pragmatic realism, rather than romantic idealism or recluse extremism.”

[Emphasis added]

5. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions in the beginning

as we intend to adjudicate the lis on the touchstone of “pragmatic

realism”. When we say “pragmatic realism”, it has to be

understood in the context of creativity, for the present  Writ

Petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks for

issue of an appropriate writ to ban the novel, namely, “Meesha”

meaning  Moustache  which appeared in a popular  Malayalam

weekly, “Mathrubhumi”, published from Kozikhode, Kerala and

circulated throughout the country and abroad.

6. It is averred by the petitioner that the said literary work is

insulting and derogatory to temple going women and it hurts the

sentiments of a particular faith/community. It is further asserted

that  the portion of the book  ‘Meesha’  which was published  in

‘Mathrubhumi’ shows temple going women in bad light and it has

a disturbing effect on the community.   

7. It is contended that the editor of ‘Mathrubhumi’ has failed

in his duty by not editing or scrutinizing the portion of the book

6

‘Meesha’ which was published in the weekly. It is put forth by the

petitioner that he has approached this Court singularly for the

protection of the legitimate interest  of the  women community.

The petitioner submits that such writings which have appeared

in ‘Mathrubhumi’ are not a  manifestation of the freedom of

expression but are collusive efforts aimed at dividing the society,

for such imputations are discriminatory against women and

threaten the  very fabric of the  society  which  embodies  within

itself the  virtues of  pluralistic  community, religion and gender

balance. The petitioner avers that defamatory and degrading

publications which cater to perverted and communal minds need

to be checked and nipped in the bud as they have a tendency to

propel the general public to view the women community as mere

sexual and material  objects which,  in turn, denies the women

community their  fundamental rights and also  jeopardizes their

safety and well­being.  

8. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the impugned

incriminating  material appearing in ‘Mathrubhumi’ defiles the

places of worship and causes the public to look down upon them

with contempt and ridicule,  whereas worshipping of  deities  by

7

visiting the temples with purity of body and mind is an integral

part of the Hindu religion.

9. It is urged that the said publication in ‘Mathrubhumi’ has

the proclivity and potentiality to disturb the public order, decency

or morality and it defames the women community, all of which

are grounds for the State to impose reasonable restrictions under

Article 19(2) on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and

expression. To buttress his stand, the petitioner has submitted

that after the publication of the incriminating material, women

visiting temples are subjected to ridicule and embarrassment

through various social media platforms and  instances such as

these are bound to have an adverse effect on the liberty, freedom

and empowerment of women.  

10. The petitioner has also averred that if such a work of

literature is not checked, it may trigger a ‘Charlie Hebdo’ kind of

a backlash in our country and, therefore, it is necessary for this

Court to lay down guidelines to regulate and prohibit, those who

control/manage/publish both on print and electronic media

platforms, from publishing such  insensitive, incriminating  and

defamatory articles which could disrupt the peaceful co­existence

of various communities and religions in the country.

8

11. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has prayed to this

Court to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ/directions

to the Respondent No. 1, the Union of India, the Respondent No.

2, the State of Kerala and the Respondent No. 4, the Chief Editor

of ‘Mathrubhumi’ weekly, to search and seize all copies of

‘Mathrubhumi’  weekly volume­2 dated 11.07.2018 from all the

States and/or issue a writ of prohibition or any other directions

to the Respondents to prevent any further publication/circulation

of the novel titled ‘Meesha’ in the form of a book or in any other

form  including the internet.  The petitioner  has  also  prayed  to

issue appropriate directions in the nature of mandamus or

otherwise to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New

Delhi, to frame such guidelines as to prevent the recurrence of

such instances which have the tendency to cause threat to the

integrity of the society and the safety of women.  

12. It may be noted here that when the Writ Petition was listed

on 02.08.2018, this Court, before issuing notice, deemed it

appropriate to pass an order on the same date which reads as

follows:­  

“Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel shall file within five days  hence the central theme  of the book  and the

9

three chapters, which have been published in a weekly newspaper, namely, Mathrubhumi.”

13. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court, Mr. M.T.

George, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chief Editor

of ‘Mathrubhumi’, the  Respondent  No.  4  herein,  has filed the

translated copy of the central theme of the book ‘Meesha’ along

with an English translation of the three chapters of the novel.

14. A perusal of the central theme of ‘Meesha’ reveals that the

book is a narration which revolves back to the 19th century and

extends to the present times with Vavachan alias Meesha

(Moustache), Paviyam, Chella and Sita as its central characters.

Vavachan is one of the six children of Paviyam and Chella and

their family is engaged in agriculture for a living. The novel

begins with young Vavachan travelling in a boat with his father

for gathering fodder grass. On the way, Paviyam tries to steal a

bunch of raw bananas from a Pulaya (farm) but his attempt was

foiled by a young woman of the household, named, Sita.

Vavachan at his young age is stunned and baffled when he sees

the half­naked body of Sita. After this rendezvous, a storm hits

and Paviyam, the father, along with his son Vavachan lose their

way. After the storm subsides and time passes, Vavachan comes

10

across two men who tell him that the world was about to witness

a  big  war  and they  were going to  Malaya (town) to escape  a

famine.  Vavachan gets hooked with the idea of Malaya though he

had no idea as regards its location.  

15. As the narration proceeds, Vavachan along with his family

lived in constant hunger. One day, a theatre group comes to their

village from Malabar. The proprietor of the theatre group needs

an actor with a big and ferocious moustache to play the role of a

policeman. But there was no one in the village who was sporting

a big moustache as it was considered as act of defiance especially

among the lower castes. The proprietor of the theatre group

comes across Vavachan who had never shaven  in his  life  and

sported thick hair and a beard. The proprietor gave Vavachan a

tonsure treatment, that is to say, he shaved his head but allowed

a ferocious Moustache (Meesha) to remain. Thereafter, Vavachan

was  put on stage  where  he only  has to scream twice blood­

curdling ‘daa’ (you).

16. In response, people got scared and ran away from the scene

and Vavachan’s moustache, which he refused to shave off even

after the show, became a notorious legend. The upper caste

people who resented Vavachan’s Moustache ascribed to him

11

every kind of crime, even though he was innocent and just

wanted to go to  Malaya and  marry the girl, Sita, who had

bedazzled him  when he  was young and  whom  he had seen

half­naked.

17. When the period of famine and hunger struck, Vavachan,

with armed men after him, fled from his village and hid in the

fields of Kuttanadan where labyrinthine canals and marshes saw

human presence only during the farming season. Gradually, with

the passage of time, Vavachan got immersed in the Kuttanadan

environment where he encountered the myths, legends, folklore

and superstitions ingrained among the people.

18. Paviyam and Chella, the parents of Vavachan, die without

seeing  him.  But  after  Chella’s  death,  he  returns to  his  native

village and runs away with a book from Kalan and reads it fully.

The stories of (Meesha) Vavachan alias Moustache get etched in

the region’s sub­consciousness. The moustache becomes a

legend himself with super natural powers. The landlords and the

government  become afraid that  Meesha’s  activities  would  hurt

the farming activities in Kuttanadan and they deploy a legendary

sub­inspector named Thanu Linga Nadar to deal with Meesha.

However, at that time, Kuttanadan witnessed a deluge and

12

Nadar’s mysterious death increased Meesha’s terror.

Subsequently, Meesha locks horns with a local strongman named

Karumathara Ittichan and rumors went around that Meesha was

killed in fight with Ittichan.

19. But Meesha had reached Kumarakom, an important place

in  northern  Kuttanadan,  where an  Englishman  called  Brenen

Sayip (Saheb) had installed a machine to pump out water from

the  fields of Kuttanadan. Refusing to divulge the secret of the

machine, Brenen Saheb charges hefty amounts from the people.

Avarachan,  a man  interested  in science,  manages  to  steal the

secret with the help of Meesha. Meesha works as a help of Baker

Sayip who has vast fields and also conducts missionary work in

the region. There Meesha befriends a fisherman called Ouseph,

who was born to a Malayali woman from Baker Sayip’s father.

20. Baker Sayip is a well­known crocodile hunter who was

known to have caused the extinction of crocodiles in the

Vembanad Lake.  However, the  last crocodile is  after  Baker  for

revenge. In the end, it is Meesha who conquers the crocodile and

due to this feat of Meesha, Baker Sayip becomes his bête noire.

When Meesha realizes that  Baker  has turned against  him, he

escapes from there along with Ouseph.

13

21. Thereafter, Meesha comes across a prostitute, Kuttathi, who

had heard about the adventures of Meesha. One Kunjachan, the

son of the lake area’s owner troubles Kuttathi and is a big

nuisance for her. Meesha slams Kunjachan as well. In return,

Kuttathi, with the assistance of one Narayanan, who also sports

a  moustache,  helps  Meesha to find  his childhood  crush  Sita.

Meesha saves Sita from a robber called Katta Pulavan.

Thereupon,  Meesha  asks  Sita to accompany  him,  but  Sita is

unwilling and refuses to submit herself to Meesha.

22. Thus, Vavachan alias Meesha, who is able to defeat

everyone in life, is defeated by a woman in the end.  

23. Presently, we may refer to and quote the dialogue from the

book “Meesha” that has impelled the petitioner to  move this

Court in the instant writ petition. The English translation of the

dialogue appears at page twenty­six of the translated copy of the

three chapters submitted by Mr.  M.T.  George, learned counsel

appearing for the Respondent  No. 4, the  Chief Editor of the

weekly ‘Mathrubhumi’. It reads thus:­

“Why do these girls take bath and put on their best

when they go to the temple?” a friend who used to

14

join the  morning  walk  until six  months  ago  once

asked.

“To Pray”, I said.

“No”, he said. “Look carefully, why do they need to

put their best clothes in the most beautiful way to

pray? They are unconsciously proclaiming that they

are ready to enter into sex”, he said. I laughed.

“Otherwise,” he continued, “why do they not come to

the temple four or five days a  month? They are

letting people know that they are not  ready  for  it.

Especially, informing those Thirumenis (Brahmin

priests) in the temple. Were they not the masters in

these matters in the past?”

24. The primary issue that emerges for consideration is whether

the aforesaid portion of the book ‘Meesha’ which the petitioner

asserts to be derogatory to the women community is an

aberration of such magnitude which requires the intervention of

this Court on the ground that it has the potentiality to disturb

the public order, decency or morality and whether it defames the

women community, and, therefore, invites imposition of

reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.   

25. For deciding this question, we must advert to the

fundamental idea behind art  and  literature and  the  liberalism

15

associated with artistic expression. Literature symbolizes freedom

to express oneself in  multitudinous ways. One should never

forget that only when creativity is not choked, it helps the society

to be able to accept the thoughts and ideas of a free mind.   

26. Literature can act as a medium to connect to the readers

only when creativity is not choked or smothered. The free flow of

the stream of creativity knows no bounds and imagination brooks

no  limits.  A  writer  or  an artist  or  any  person in the  creative

sphere has to think in an unfettered way free from the shackles

that may hinder his musings and ruminations. The writers

possess the freedom to express their views and imagination and

readers too enjoy the freedom to perceive and imagine from their

own viewpoint. Sans imagination, the thinking process is

conditioned.  

27. Creative voices cannot be stifled or silenced and intellectual

freedom cannot be annihilated.   It is  perilous to obstruct free

speech, expression, creativity and imagination, for it leads to a

state of intellectual repression of literary freedom thereby

blocking free thought and the fertile faculties of the human mind

and eventually  paving the  path of literary  pusillanimity. Ideas

have wings. If the wings of free flow of ideas and imagination are

16

clipped, no work of art can be created.   The culture of banning

books directly impacts the free flow of ideas and is an affront to

the freedom of  speech, thought  and expression.  Any direct  or

veiled censorship or ban of book, unless defamatory or

derogatory to any community for abject obscenity, would create

unrest and disquiet among the intelligentsia by going beyond the

bounds of  intellectual tolerance and further creating danger to

intellectual freedom thereby gradually resulting in "intellectual

cowardice" which is said to be the greatest enemy of a writer, for

it destroys the free spirit of the writer.   It shall invite a chilling

winter of discontent.   We must remember that we live not in a

totalitarian regime but in a democratic nation which permits free

exchange of ideas and liberty of thought and expression. It is only

by defending the sacrosanct principles of free speech and

expression or, to  borrow the words of  Justice  Louis  Brandeis,

"the freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think" and

by safeguarding the unfettered creative spirit and imagination of

authors, writers, artists and persons in the creative field that we

can preserve the  basic tenets  of  our  constitutional ideals  and

mature as a democratic society where the freedoms to read and

write are valued and cherished.

17

28. The aforesaid also calls from the readers and admirers of

literature and art to exhibit a certain degree of adherence to the

unwritten codes of maturity, humanity and tolerance so that the

freedom of expression reigns supreme and is not inhibited in any

manner. The flag of democratic values and ideals of freedom and

liberty has to be kept flying high at all costs and the Judiciary

must remain committed to  this  spirit  at  all times unless  they

really and, we mean, really  in the real sense of the term, run

counter to what is prohibited in law.  And, needless to emphasise

that prohibition should not be allowed entry at someone’s fancy

or view or perception.  

29. In  Samaresh Bose and another v. Amal Mitra and

another3, the question that arose before this Court was whether

the  accused  persons  had committed  an offence  under  Section

292 IPC.  In the said case, an author had written a novel under

the caption ‘Prajapati’  which was published in  ‘Sarodiya Desh’.

The contention  before the trial court  was that the  novel  was

obscene and both the accused persons, namely, the author and

the  publisher  had sold,  distributed,  printed  and exhibited the

same.   The accused  persons  who faced trial stood convicted.

3 (1985) 4 SCC 289

18

Their conviction was affirmed by the High Court.  This Court,

while dealing  with the issue for the purpose of deciding the

question of obscenity in any book, story or article, opined:­

“29. … The decision of the court must necessarily be on an objective  assessment  of the  book  or story  or article as a whole and with particular reference to the passages complained of  in the book, story or article. The court  must take an overall view  of the  matter complained of as obscene in the setting of the whole work, but the matter charged as obscene must also be considered by itself and separately to find out whether it is so gross and its obscenity so pronounced that it is likely to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to influence of this sort and into whose hands the book is likely to fall. Though the court must consider the question objectively with an open mind, yet in the matter of objective assessment the subjective attitude of the Judge hearing the matter is likely to influence, even though unconsciously, his mind and his decision on the question. A Judge with a puritan and prudish outlook may on the basis of an objective assessment of any book or story or article, consider the same to be obscene.  It is possible that another Judge with a different kind of outlook may not consider the same book to be obscene on his objective assessment of the very same book. The concept of obscenity is  moulded to a very great extent  by the social outlook of the people who are generally expected to read the book. It is beyond dispute that the concept of  obscenity  usually  differs from country to  country depending on the standards of morality of contemporary society in different countries. In our opinion, in judging the question of obscenity, the Judge in the first place should try to place himself in the position of the author and from the viewpoint of the author the Judge should try to understand what is it that the author seeks to convey and whether what the author conveys has any literary and artistic value.

19

The Judge should thereafter place himself in the position of a reader of every age group in whose hands the book is likely to fall and should try to appreciate what kind of possible influence the book is  likely to have in the minds of the readers. …”

The Court, further analyzing the story of the novel, expressed

thus:­

“35. … If we place ourselves in the position of readers, who are likely to read this  book—and we  must  not forget that in this class of readers there will probably be readers of both sexes and of all ages between teenagers and the aged—we feel that the readers as a class will read  the book with a  sense  of  shock and disgust, and we do not think that any reader on reading this  book  would  become  depraved,  debased and encouraged to lasciviousness. It is quite possible that they come across such characters and such situations in life and have faced them or may have to face them in life. On a very anxious consideration and after carefully applying our judicial mind in making an objective assessment of the novel we do not think that it  can be said with any assurance that  the novel is obscene merely because slang and unconventional words have been used in the book in which there have been emphasis on sex and description of female bodies and there are the narrations of feelings, thoughts and actions in vulgar language. Some portions of the book may appear to be vulgar and readers of cultured and refined taste may feel shocked and disgusted. Equally in some portions, the words used and description given may not appear to be in proper taste. In some places there may have been an exhibition of bad taste leaving it to the readers of experience and maturity to draw the necessary inference but certainly not sufficient to bring home to the adolescents any suggestion which is depraving or lascivious.”

20

30. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the

pronouncement in Bobby Art International and others v. Om

Pal Singh Hoon and others4, popularly known as  “Bandit

Queen case”.   The Court analysed the storyline, the humiliation

faced by the female child, the torment faced by her and,

eventually, the innocent woman becoming a dreaded dacoit and

observed that to appreciate the story, the character of the person

portrayed had to be viewed.  In that context, the Court held:­

“27. First, the scene where she is humiliated, stripped naked,  paraded,  made  to  draw water from the  well, within the circle of a hundred men. The exposure of her breasts and genitalia to those men is intended by those who strip her to demean her.  The effect of  so doing upon her could hardly have been better conveyed than  by explicitly showing the scene. The object of doing so was not to titillate the cinemagoer’s lust but to arouse in him sympathy for the victim and disgust for the  perpetrators. The revulsion that the Tribunal referred to was not at Phoolan Devi’s nudity but at the sadism and heartlessness of those who had stripped her naked to rob her of every shred of dignity. Nakedness does not always arouse the baser instinct. The reference by the Tribunal to the film ‘Schindler’s List’ was apt. There is a scene in it of rows of naked men and women, shown frontally, being led into the gas chambers of a Nazi concentration camp. Not only are they about to die but they have been stripped in their last  moments of the basic dignity of human beings. Tears are a likely reaction; pity, horror and a fellow­feeling of shame are certain, except in the pervert who might be aroused. We do not censor to

4 (1996) 4 SCC 1

21

protect the pervert or to assuage the susceptibilities of the over­sensitive. ‘Bandit Queen’ tells a powerful human story and to that story the scene of Phoolan Devi’s enforced  naked parade is central. It  helps to explain why Phoolan Devi became what she did: her rage and vendetta against the society that had heaped indignities upon her.”

The aforesaid,  as is  evident,  appreciates the  agonies  and

torture suffered by the protagonist and the nature of depiction of

the scenes on celluloid and  lays down the principle  not to be

guided by the sensitivity of  a pervert viewer.   The principle of

assuagement is not to be taken recourse to so as to make the

idea of freedom of expression susceptible to suit the views and

perceptions of a pervert thinker or viewer. Similarly, while

reading a book, the setting, the constituents that constitute the

elements of the character and the purpose are to be kept in view.

31. In this context, reference to the view expressed in  Viacom

18 Media Private Limited and others v. Union of India and

others5 would be apposite.  In the said case, the challenge was to

the ban imposed by four States for screening the movie

‘Padmaavat’. The Court quashed the notifications of banning on

the bedrock that the expression of an idea through the medium

of cinema which is a popular medium has its own status and the

5 (2018) 1 SCC 761

22

artistic expression should not be tinkered with. The Court went

on to observe that if intellectual prowess and natural or

cultivated power of creation is inhibited without the permissible

facet  of law, the  concept  of creativity  would  pave the  path of

extinction; and when creativity dies, values of civilization corrode.

The Court, in the said context,  reproduced a passage from an

order in  Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film

Certification6 which reads as under:­

“Be it noted, a film or a drama or a novel or a book is a creation of art.   An artist has  his own freedom  to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of expressive mind. The human history records that there are many authors who express their thoughts according to the choice of their words, phrases, expressions and also create characters who may look absolutely different than an ordinary man would conceive of.  A thought provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical.   It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub­conscious thoughts of the viewer.   If there has to be any limitation, that  has to be as per  the prescription  in law.”

32. In Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of

India  and  others7,  the issue  before this  Court  was  whether

screening of feature film, which incorporated a perception with

6 (2018) 1 SCC 778 7 2018 (4 ) SCALE 390

23

regard to a particular situation,  would affect the trial which

involved the petitioner, the society or the exercise of “error

jurisdiction” of the appellate court. This Court negatived the said

contention and ruled that courts of law decide the lis on the basis

of the  materials brought on record and not on the basis of

imagination as projected in the language of the theatre or a script

on celluloid. The Court opined thus:­

“…there  can be  multitudinous  modes,  manners  and methods  to express a concept.  One may choose  the mode of  silence to be visually eloquent and another may use the method of semi melodramatic approach that will have impact. It is the individual thought and approach which cannot be curbed.”

And again:

“…the doctrine of  sub­judice may not be elevated to such an extent that some kind of reference or allusion to a member of a society would warrant the negation of the right to freedom of speech and expression which is an extremely cherished right enshrined under the Constitution. The moment the right to freedom of speech and expression is atrophied, not only the right but also the person having the right gets into a semi coma. We may hasten to add that the said right is not absolute but any restriction imposed thereon has to be extremely narrow and within reasonable parameters. In the case at hand, we are obligated to think that the grant of certificate by the CBFC, after consulting with the authorities of the Army, should dispel any apprehension of the members or the society.”

24

33. It would usher in a perilous situation, if the constitutional

courts, for the asking or on the basis of some allegation

pertaining to scandalous effect, obstruct free speech, expression,

creativity and imagination. It would lead to a state of intellectual

repression of literary freedom. When we say so, we are absolutely

alive to the fact that the said right is not absolute but any

restriction imposed thereon has to be extremely narrow and

within the reasonable parameters as delineated by Article 19(2) of

the Constitution. Here, we may remind ourselves of the

expression used by George Orwell. It is free thinking and

intellectual cowardice. Creative writing is contrary to intellectual

cowardice and intellectual pusillanimity.  

34. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, the objections

raised as regards the  contents  of the  novel  and  the language

used which is reflected in the dialogue as reproduced

hereinbefore are to be decided.   The grievance, as is reflectible,

pertains to derogatory comments on  women, especially  when

they go to temple.  As stated earlier, it is the duty of the Court to

see whether such a dialogue was contrived to give rise to any

kind of sensuous situation or projection of a class to humiliate

them.  A  creative  work  has to  be read  with  a  matured spirit,

25

catholicity of approach, objective tolerance and a sense of

acceptability founded on reality that is differently projected but

not with the obsessed idea of perversity that immediately

connects one with the passion of didacticism or, for that matter,

perception of puritanical attitude. A reader should have the

sensibility to understand the situation and appreciate the

character and not draw the conclusion that everything that  is

written is  in bad taste and deliberately so done to pollute the

young minds. On the contrary, he/she should elevate

himself/herself as a co­walker  with the  author as if there is

social link and intellectual connect.   The feeling of perverse

judging should be abandoned.  A creative writing is expectant of

empathetic reading.   It is  not averse to criticism but certainly

does not tolerate unwarranted protest.  The author of “Wuthering

Heights” expects the readers to  appreciate the  morbidity that

surrounds the character of “Heathcliff”.  Similarly, the great poet

of “Nala Damayanti” desired the readers to enjoy the description

of the beauty of the princess appreciating the narrative but not to

engage in pervert thinking.   

35. One has to understand and appreciate the characteristics of

the character and the plots and sub­plots that are woven in the

26

story.  The character of Meesha as has been projected shows the

myriad experiences with different situations.   The situations, as

we find, can  be  perceived  as certain sub­plots  which evolved

around the fundamental characteristics of the protagonist.   The

theory of consistency of character as adopted by certain writers

seems to have been maintained in the narrative.  The situations

and the treatment of situations may be different but the basic

response of the protagonist remains unchanged.   All these, we

say, can be from one reader’s point of view.  To another reader, it

may seem that the sub­plots have been enthusiastically

contrived to bring in tempting situations to draw the protagonist

in and to exposit chain reactions.  Appreciated from either point

of view, it cannot be denied that it is a manifestation of creativity.

The perception of a character which is in consonance with the

story invites empathetic readers to view him/her from a different

perspective.  A reader with mature sensibility would connect with

the plight of the protagonist or may distance himself/herself by

expressing the view that the projection is derogatory and hurtful

to a section of people.   He/she treats the novel as scandalous

and offensive.  The  Court is  not to  be  swayed by  any kind  of

perception.   One may have a grave dislike towards a particular

27

manner of expression but that would not warrant for issue of a

mandamus from the Court to ban the book or the publication.

The language used in the dialogue cannot remotely be thought of

as obscene. The concept of defamation does not arise.  Nurturing

the  idea  that it is  derogatory and hurtful to  the  temple going

women would tantamount to pyramiding a superstructure

without the infrastructure.   

36. If one  understands the  progression  of character through

events and situations, a keen reader will find that beneath the

complex scenario, the urge is to defeat and to conquer and not to

accept a denial. Both the facets are in the realm of obsession and

the author allows the protagonist to rule his planet. His

imagination encircles his world. A reader has the liberty to

admire him or to sympathise.  Either way, the dialogue to which

the objection is raised is not an intrusion to create sensation. It

is a facet of projection of the characters. It is, in a way,

imaginative reality or as Pablo Picasso  would like to put it,

“Everything you can imagine is real”.   A pervert reader  may

visualise absence of decency or  morality or the presence of

obscenity but they are really invisible.

28

37. If books are banned on such allegations, there can be no

creativity.   Such interference by constitutional courts will cause

the death of art.  True it is, the freedom enjoyed by an author is

not absolute, but before imposition of any restriction, the duty of

the Court is to see whether there is really something that comes

within the ambit and sweep of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

At that time, the Court should remember what has been said in

S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others8 wherein, while

interpreting Article 19(2), this Court borrowed from the American

test of clear and present danger and observed:­

“45.  … Our commitment of freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the  community interest is  endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far­fetched. It should  have  proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should  be intrinsically  dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a “spark in a power keg”.”

38. To apply the said litmus test, it is to be borne in mind that a

book should not be read in a fragmented manner.   It has to be

read as a whole.   The language used, the ideas developed, the

style  adopted, the manner in which the characters are portrayed,

8 (1989) 2 SCC 574

29

the type of imagery taken aid of for depiction, the thematic

subsidiary concepts projected and the nature of  delineation of

situations have to be understood from an objective point of view.

There may be subjective perception of a book as regards its worth

and  evaluation but the said  subjectivity cannot  be  allowed  to

enter into the legal arena for censorship or ban of a book.

39. Quite apart from the above, the creativity and the author’s

perception of the universe are to be borne in mind.  What is true

to poetry is applicable to novels or any creative writing.  It has to

be kept uppermost in mind that the imagination of a writer has

to enjoy freedom.   It cannot be asked to succumb to specifics.

That  will tantamount  to imposition.  A writer  should have free

play with words, like a painter has it with colours. The passion of

imagination cannot be directed. True it is, the final publication

must not run counter to law but the application of the rigours of

law has to also remain alive to the various aspects that have been

accepted by the authorities of the Court. The craftsmanship of a

writer deserves respect by acceptation of the concept of objective

perceptibility.  

40. It ought to be remembered that eventually, what the great

writer and thinker Voltaire had said   “― I may disapprove of what

30

you say, but I  will defend to the death your right to say it”

becomes the laser beam for guidance  when one talks about

freedom of expression.  

41. In view of the  aforesaid  analysis, the  writ  petition,  being

devoid  of  merit, stands dismissed.  However, there  shall  be  no

order as to costs.   

 …………………………….CJI   (Dipak Misra)

……………………………….J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)

New Delhi;              ...………………….………..J. September 05, 2018              (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)