The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the use of abusive, vulgar, or profane language, however distasteful or uncivil, does not equate to legal obscenity under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Deciding an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment, a division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the convictions of a 70-year-old man for obscenity and criminal intimidation. However, the court upheld his conviction under Section 326 for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon, subsequently modifying his sentence to the rising of the Court alongside a fine of Rs. 50,000, citing his advanced age, health condition, and the nature of the dispute.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a land dispute in August 2017. On August 22, 2017, an altercation took place between the appellant, Mani @ Subramaniyam, and Ramasamy, the complainant’s brother-in-law. Two days later, on August 24, 2017, the appellant allegedly quarreled with and abused the complainant’s nephew (PW-4) over the same dispute. When the complainant, Mahalingam (PW-1), intervened to confront the appellant, the appellant allegedly uttered obscene words and caste-based slurs. The appellant then brought a billhook from his house and assaulted PW-1, causing multiple lacerations on his forehead, nose, and left thumb. PW-1 was treated at the Government Hospital, Bhavani, where Dr. R. Dhinakar (PW-2), a Senior Civil Surgeon, examined him and later confirmed a nasal bone fracture.
An FIR was registered at PS Appakoodal under Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The charge under Section 324 IPC was subsequently altered to Section 326 IPC due to the grievous nature of the nasal fracture.
The Special Court for SC/ST cases in Erode convicted the appellant on all charges. On appeal, the Madras High Court acquitted him of the charges under the SC/ST Act but confirmed his convictions under Sections 294(b), 326, and 506(ii) IPC, reducing his sentence under Section 326 IPC from five years to one year of simple imprisonment. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant pleaded his innocence and challenged the legal validity of his convictions under the IPC. Regarding the conviction under Section 326 IPC, the appellant argued that the provision was not attracted because the injuries sustained by the complainant were not in the form of incised wounds.
Neither the State nor the complainant filed any cross-appeal to challenge the appellant’s acquittal under the SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court also heard submissions from senior counsel Shailesh Madiyal, who was appointed by the Court to assist as amicus curiae.
The Court’s Analysis
1. Offence of Obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC
The Supreme Court examined the essential ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC, noting that the word “obscene” is not defined under the IPC. The Court referred to established precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, which applied the “Hicklin test” to determine obscenity based on whether the matter tends to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds. The Court also discussed Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra and Aveek Sarkar v. State of W.B., where the “community standard test” was adopted, defining obscenity as material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, and tends to deprave and corrupt an average person.
The bench drew a sharp distinction between legal obscenity and vulgar or abusive language. Justice Sanjay Karol, writing the judgment, observed:
“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.”
Referencing Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, and Apoorva Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated:
“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.”
The bench noted that the words allegedly uttered by the appellant during the altercation were, at best, abusive or vulgar, but lacked any lascivious element capable of arousing sexual thoughts. The Court concluded:
“Such words, howsoever abusive, unpalatable or uncivil, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 294(b) IPC for there being nothing on record to show that they had any one or all three elements referred to hereinabove.”
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest that the use of such words caused “annoyance to others” in a public place, which is a mandatory statutory ingredient.
2. Offence of Criminal Intimidation under Section 506(ii) IPC
Analyzing the charge of criminal intimidation, the Court relied on Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., outlining that there must be an intentional threat to cause alarm. The prosecution’s case rested on the allegation that the appellant waved the billhook and threatened the complainant, saying he would not rest until he hacked him. The Court held:
“Mere use of threatening words during the course of an altercation, without the proof that it was intended to cause alarm to the complainant or to compel him to do or omit to do any act, would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this provision.”
As there was no evidence indicating that the appellant intended to cause alarm to the complainant, the conviction under Section 506(ii) IPC was set aside.
3. Offence of Grievous Hurt under Section 326 IPC
Applying the ingredients from Mathai v. State of Kerala, the Court reviewed the medical evidence. It rejected the appellant’s argument that Section 326 IPC requires an incised wound. Under Section 320 IPC, a “fracture or dislocation of a bone” is classified as a “grievous hurt.” The CT scan and medical testimonies confirmed that the complainant suffered a nasal bone fracture caused by a billhook, which is undoubtedly a dangerous weapon. Thus, the conviction under Section 326 IPC was affirmed.
The Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the appellant’s convictions and sentences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC. While affirming the conviction under Section 326 IPC, the Court took into consideration that the incident arose from a family land dispute and noted the appellant’s advanced age of approximately 70 years and his health condition.
Consequently, the bench modified his sentence of imprisonment to “till the rising of the Court” on a specified day, while imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be paid within a period of two months.
Case Details
Case Title: Mani @ Subramaniyam Versus State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4516 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date of Judgment: 17 July 2026
