Section 294(b) IPC: Supreme Court Says Profanity Alone Is Not Obscenity

The Supreme Court has held that the mere use of profanity, vulgarity or abusive language, even if it causes annoyance or disgust, does not automatically amount to obscenity unless the essential legal ingredients of the offence are established.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi said that for an offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], the words complained of must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, and have the tendency to deprave or corrupt persons.

Allowing an appeal filed by Mani alias Subramaniyam, Court held that the words used by him during the heat of an altercation were abusive and vulgar, but did not satisfy the legal test for obscenity under Section 294(b), IPC.

Also Read| Expletive-filled language itself not sufficient to make content obscene: SC

Court also set aside his conviction under Section 506(ii), IPC [Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], holding that the evidence did not establish any intention to cause alarm or compel the victim to act against his will.

"For an offence of criminal intimidation, it must be proved that the accused threatened another with injury and that such threat was intended to cause alarm or to compel the victim to perform or omit an act. A mere outburst of threatening words during an altercation, without proof of such intent, is insufficient for conviction," the Bench observed.

However, Court upheld the conviction under Section 326, IPC [Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)] after medical evidence confirmed that the victim had suffered a nasal bone fracture caused by a billhook.

"Voluntarily causing grievous hurt using a dangerous weapon is punishable under Section 326 IPC. Fracture of a bone, as defined under Section 320 IPC, constitutes grievous hurt, and the use of a tool like a billhook in the commission of such an injury satisfies the requirement of a dangerous weapon," the Bench said.

When do abusive words become obscene under Section 294(b) IPC?

Answering this question, Court drew a clear distinction between "obscene" words and words that are merely abusive, vulgar or profane.

"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," the Bench said.

Also Read| ‘Obscene Content a Serious Concern’: SC Issues Notice to Centre, OTT Platforms, Social Media Giants

Court explained that the test is whether the words are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, and have the tendency to deprave and corrupt impressionable minds. It must also be shown that the words caused annoyance to others. Unless these essential ingredients are present, an offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out.

The Bench observed that words which are merely vulgar or abusive may evoke feelings of disgust, revulsion or shock, but that alone does not make them obscene in law. It noted that previous judicial decisions have consistently held that abusive, vulgar or profane language does not necessarily amount to obscenity.

Referring to the prosecution witness's own version, Court found that the words used by the appellant were, at best, abusive or vulgar in nature.

"Even if all the allegations levelled in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted to be true in entirety, the same cannot be held to be obscene. Such words, howsoever abusive, unpalatable or uncivil, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 294(b) IPC," the Bench held.

Court also noted that it was not the prosecution's case that the use of such words caused annoyance to others in a public place, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 294(b) IPC.

Background of the case

The appeal arose from an August 13, 2024 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had partly allowed the appellant's appeal.

While the high court acquitted the appellant of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, it partly confirmed the judgment of the Special Court under the SC/ST Act in Erode and modified the sentence imposed on him.

Also Read| Social Media Platforms Cannot Evade Indian Laws: Allahabad High Court

According to the prosecution, the incident took place in 2017 following a land dispute. It was alleged that the appellant abused the complainant using obscene words and caste-based slurs before bringing a billhook from his house and attacking him on the forehead, nose and left thumb, causing multiple injuries.

The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. The High Court later reduced the sentence to one year's imprisonment.

Sentence reduced considering age and health

While affirming the conviction under Section 326 IPC, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the incident arose out of a land dispute between the families, and also considered the appellant's age and medical condition.

Observing that the appellant is around 70 years old and in poor health, the court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court on a day to be specified by the concerned court. It also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000.

Case Title: Mani @ Subramaniyam Vs State Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Judgment: July 17, 2026