Increase in indecent representation of women in advertiseme

why govt. wants to control all this, why they want to take india back to 18th century or before. 

as per my thinking there should not be any act to check all this.  instead of checking all this things they should give freedom to chose what to watch or use to viewers/consumers. 

what is definition of decency and indecency? can u define? and tell me in which category sculpture from khajurao temples should be put decent or indecent?

decency or indecency lies in eyes of the person

There are many option to curb indecent representations of women in India through laws like IPC, Indecent Representation Of Women(prohibition)Act 1986, Information Technology Act 2000, In Young Person's(Harmful Publications) Act 1956, Cable Television Network Regulation Act 1995, Regulatory bodies like NGOs, Human Rights Commission , Press Council of India etc, people and society can also play an important role in curbing the indecent representation of women in advertisements.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that a mass awakening only can make a change in the attitude of advertisements towards women. Public service Advertisements are doing their part- thanks to the Governments and NGOs. But women organizations, police, politicians, social workers, legal activists- all have to join hands to fight those indulging in indecent representation of women in advertisements. Much have to be researched in this field to bring forth a comprehensive piece of legislation or amendments in the existing laws to deal with the vulgar portrayal of women in advertisements. Transnational companies and their advertisements do have a negative persuasive effect on the viewers of our country, especially youngsters. The advertisements portraying women in a vulgar way, whether it be in hoardings or other in other media, is tolerated and over looked by the people. For. e.g. there is a duty attached to officers under different acts like the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition )Act,1986 which can be resorted to remove hoardings with women pictured in a vulgar way. In these circumstances a writ of mandamus can be resorted to. By various cases, the Supreme Court has recognized that the advertisements were in the nature of “commercial speech’, thereby liable to be protected under Art 19(1) (a). But it must be remembered that it is not a blanket protection because of the restrictions which includes inter alia grounds of morality and decency. I would like to points out that the models as well as the advertising agencies do have a right to livelihood and profession, but the so called social workers and activists and lawyers and media persons should come up to enlighten the society at large about the legal consequences of indecent acts.

Yes. Vyasji you raised a very important point.  The hoardings displaying semi-clad girls on both sides of the streets are really eye-sore.  Very difficult to travel in the city along with the family when they display such things.  Suchitraji rightly pointed out that some corporate houses excessively expose female body without necessity.  In India we have several laws, some are enacted to discharge the international obligations and some as per the wisdom of our parliament.  But all of such beneficial laws became redundant due to non-implementation.  Even, the domestic violence Act is also facing the same situation.  The service providers are not identified, the protections officers are not designated in several states.  Where the service providers are identified,  the service providers are refusing to discharge their responsibility of preparing Domestic Incidents report as they are being attacked when they visit the husband's house to prepare the report.  They are saying that without police protection they dare not to venture to visit the matrimonial home of the aggrieved person.  In the case of indecent representation Act also, implementing intention is not there.  Hence, these rights are existing only on paper and not in real life.

Here also, on this portal, women, who sought their rights under  maintenance laws and / or Section 498-A  are denigrated with worst adjectives (abuses), such as "prostitutes", "s*x-workers", "Sikhandi", "thief", "beggar" etc.  It is definitely violation mentioned in Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act.  As this section stipulates -66(A) (a) "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character".   Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device such information shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.  The fine is Rs. 2.00 lakhs.  If the offence is perpetrated against woman it is non-bailable.  Even though the accused often change their names and hardware which they use, the cyber crime cell has got the power  and technic to find them out.  The cyber crime cell has got the power and technique to find out the messanger who sends such offensive messages.  The Act also provides the cyber crime cell to search and seizure the hard-disk and / or software used in sending such offence messages.  They can do their search in the accused's residence as well as cybercafe, if from there he is sending such offensive messages.  In addition to this, Section 509 of IPC says it is an offence if - "word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman".   This section has been violated by some of the members of this forum repeatedly.  This is also indecent representation of women, even though these acts are not punishable under the Act, 1986, these acts are certainly punishable under S.509 IPC as well as Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.  Further, for invoking the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 territorial jurisdiction is also not required.  Any aggrieved persons (male /  female)  can send his complaint by e-mail to the cyber crime cell in his/her state and the rest of the action will be taken by the cyber crime cell.  By such deterrent action only, the people, who disrespect women, will come to know "what is decency", while cooling their heels in the jail.  

Hit www.ivillage.com and learn that women seduce men by wearing indecent dresses and that men are fools who don't even know what indecent is.

I think, it all starts with cinema actors and cinema dialogues. First there should be a prohibition in those areas of filmdom. No professional model would behave or expose so badly than an actor in an Ad!

Women empowerment !1 except some s*x starved self professed paragone of probity in public life, who bothers ?? Women are paid for  showing their assets and roving eyes pay for them . I don;t find what is wrong in it ad what  is indecent .  Whether a swin suit  is indecent or a hipster jeans , is a matter of perception. Let's not be the moral police and mind our own business