Is saying 'motherf*****' in courtroom 'obscene'? Supreme Court clarifies after CJI abuse incident

Is using words like 'motherf*****' or other such expletives in court considered obscene? The Supreme Court on Friday made a careful statement on profanity, arguing that their use was nuanced.

These observations were made by a two-judge bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, who had partly allowed the appeal of a man charged with obscenity when he had used expletives during a land dispute case hearing.

"Let’s be clear, legally, obscenity is not synonymous with ‘vulgarity’, ‘abuse’ or ‘profanity’ ... 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,” they said, as per a Bar and Bench report. 

This also comes after a July 10 case hearing, in which the petitioner, representing himself, "ordered" a two-judge bench to listen to his instructions, and abused Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant.

"Yeh de dena **** CJI ko (Give these to the **** CJI)," he said, abusing the CJI as he was quickly restrained by security personnel inside the apex court.

Despite the courtroom drama, the bench took no action against him, and even passed a ruling, based on the merits of the case.

What really happened on Friday?

The Friday hearing stemmed from an August 2017 dispute over agricultural land in Tamil Nadu.

The prosecution claimed that an altercation first broke out between the accused appellant, 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 issue.

When the complainant tried to break up the quarrel, Mani allegedly abused him using vulgar expletives and casteist slurs before fetching a billhook and attacking the complainant with it.

The complainant allegedly sustained injuries to his forehead, nose, and thumb.

A trial court convicted Mani under Sections 294(b) (obscenity), 326 (grievous hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in addition to provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Madras High Court later acquitted Mani of the charges under the SC/ST Act, but upheld the IPC charges.

It was then that he came to the apex court, which has now acquitted him of the Section 294(b) charge, as it ruled that profanity would only be equal to obscenity if it was lascivious, appealed to prurient interests, or had the tendency to deprave and corrupt those exposed to it.

“In the present case, during the altercation, the appellant allegedly uttered: 'Hey motherf*****! You son of a w****! Are you coming in support of your elder sister's son? Just f*** off...' Such words, howsoever abusive, unpalatable or uncivil, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 294(b) IPC,” the bench noted.

Setting aside the charges under Section 506(ii), the Supreme Court, however, upheld Mani's conviction under Section 326 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 Rs 50,000.