please help..

do post ur moot problem as well, may be someone helping u in other way also.

As Kiran mentioned already, can you please present the moot problem here ? Also, include the opinion of the other courts if possible. Thnx.

 Sir, 

I am hereby sending the moot problem..

 know this moot problem is quite similar to one complaint lodged against film actor Akshay Kumar and his wife Twinkle when he staged in Lakeme fashion week Programme in order to campain for a brand o jeans. Complaint was lodged by one social activist /anil Nair in that case. That case was booked under 294 of IPC and since it is a bailable offence, she was released. . Please go thru the moot problem and advise me with supporting case laws...

Mr. Jacky, a proprietor of Jackson's fabric Co has launched his new brand of jeans pant with a new looks. The brand has a new type of pockets and a new stylish zip which is desingned with golden and silber metals . To exhibit this new brand of jeans he organized a fashion show in which he had invited many celebrates of film and fashion world. The pulic was also allowed to see the fashion ramp by buying tickets ,The garment was exhibited by a noted film star Mr, Aakash Kumar by wearing it in a ramp and the same was unzipped and zipped by his wife to highlight the speciality of zip of the jeans pant. after this incident there was a great demand for Jackson's jeans fabrics.

After a few days of this great event a complaint was filed against Mr, Aakash Kumar and his wife, 

Argue either on side of Prosecution or for Mr, Aakash Kumar and his wife..

In the p*rnographic debate the law enforcement machinery i.e., the state acts as the super cop of morality. The law embraces still the fog of Victorian morality. In the Victorian era s*x was shameful and to be hidden.

The main difficulty is to adjudicate on whether a publication, photograph or any literary form is obscene or not. There is very little agreement as to exactly what is obscene. The offence of indecent representation or obscenity was made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. Sections 292, 293 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code are laws relating to obscenity in India. A book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing , painting, representation, figure or any other object is consider obscene if it is lascivious or if it tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter contained in it .

The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 was enacted to have a separate legislation to effectively prohibit the indecent representation of women through advertisements, books and pamphlets. ‘Indecent representation of women’ means “the depiction in nay manner of the figure of a woman , her form or body or any part of it in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to, or denigrating women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals.”

The legal provisions dealing with obscenity are ineffectual. Section 292 of I.P.C and section 3(7) of the Indecent Representation of women (prohibition) Act did not define obscenity. The section leave a lot to the judges to decide what is obscene. Obscenity definitely being a subjective matter is difficult to explain. The Supreme Court and other courts in India adopted the test of obscenity laid down by Cockburn J. in Hickinson case: “…. Whether the tendency of matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those minds are open to such immoral influences and …it is quiet certain that it would suggest the minds of the young….thoughts of most impure and libidinous character.” In the case of Virendra Vs State of Punjab the Supreme Court declared that obscene means “offensive to modesty or decency, lewd, filthy and repulsive.”

There is no clear-cut definition for obscenity. Radical changes in our social attitudes and community standards alter the concepts of obscenity. What was considered as unethical and illegal in past may not be the same in 21st century. The change in attitude towards D.H.Lawrence’s novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover is a classic example. The Supreme Court of India in Ranjit Udeshi Vs State of Maharashtra condemns the said novel as obscene. In England too a case was filed under the Obscene Publication act, 1959 . Later an expurgated version appeared in America in 1959 and in Britain in 1960. The novel is now prescribed as a study text for graduate and post graduate literature students.

Another controversial issue raised is who is best qualified to interpret what is vulgarity. Who decides what is moral and good for community? Can the court be an arbiter of good taste? The Supreme Court in Samaresh Bose Vs Amal Mitra provided that in judging the question of obscenity the judge should place himself in the position of the author, the reader of every age group and there after to apply his judicial mind. The remark made by Justice Stable poses an apt question:-“Are we (judges) to take our literary standards as being the level of something that suitable for 14 year old girl ?”

In the process of applying the test of obscenity the arguments are always based on mere political discourses. The definition of obscenity, freedom of speech and expression and others fill the agenda of discussion. Unfortunately the attention of legal minds are never focused about gender relations, women and children, s*xual and reproductive health needs of young people and others. The right of an adult to experience the world, the right of the gays, lesbians and bis*xuals to see their own s*xuality represented in the movies and literature were always excluded from the framework of discussion.

In reality the nudity and p*rn literature is problematic and vulgar to adults rather than children. Only a pedophile can find anything of a s*xually provocative nature in pictures of naked children. It is an open confession that our responses to images of nudity or semi nudity cannot be trusted and are liable to corruption, which will allow perverted and depraved s*xuality to emerge from the sophisticated self. No longer can one boast about the control over s*xual desires.

The banning of mobiles and cinematic dances would just create opportunities for more national and international seminars, and pious declarations. How would the law be enforced? Would it penalize the college authorities where the cinematic dance is held? Would it fine parents for sending their children to school with a mobile? How would the poor parents pay the fines? Would it then imprison them? Just one parent or both?

Would the law ever be properly and consistently applied? Who would bear the burden of arbitrary enforcement? The proponents never raise the issues of enforcement. They want to claim to have done something for the argument sake without really doing anything just by passing a law.

One must not forget the distinction between laws and morals. No society has been able to legislate moral behaviour. We are no different. Our experience with other good-intention laws against child labour, dowry and other social ills does confirm this outcome. Those who want to practice these have rarely been deterred. And any positively development in these areas could hardly be attributed to these laws.

Total ban is impossible. The world history of prohibition stands as a guide. A total ban on the movies, magazines, mobiles, cafes is not practical. The legal avatars of anti p*rn movement succeed in criticizing p*rn by demonizing, criminalizing and illegalizing it.
Criminalizing p*rn only drives the business underground. The fruits of illegality will be crime, exploitation, black market. There will be rise of the mafia, street violence to capture markets, corruption of the police, legal system, and the bureaucracy, untold deaths due to illicit liquor.
In the final analysis, prohibition has done more damage, not just to the treasury, which is of the least consequence, but to families and communities, the alleged beneficiaries of the ban. The law of unintended consequences is far more potent in case of good-intention laws.

The case study of heroine is a good illustration. Until the seventies any doctors in England could prescribe heroine for patients. There were fewer than 500 addicts. In 1971 heroin was outlawed. Today the number of heroin addicts in England is beyond belief. The black-market exploded and dealing heroine became a profitable business.

In short, the law looks at technology and media of 21st century with the punitive system of 19th century to create a very suppressive and conservative s*xual morality. The police and legal forces wrongly assume its role as a super cop of the morality and their task is to bring culprits to courts thereby pitting officials against media. A complete transformation is required in our jurisprudential thought where the agenda of the judiciary, censor Boards, media representatives should be to strengthen civil society. If not, the argument continues…and it remains forever as a matter of controversy.

I would like to contradict your opinion on comparing this moot problem with Akshay case, though the gist of the story seem to be the same. The latter one had indecent expressions construing an obscenity in the public, though the product did not demand to be shown at minute level. And also, there was some irrelevancy involved as Akshay approaching his wife who was seated in the front row and allegedly was asked to unbutton his jean pant. How would such performance increase the demand of the product or talk about the product ? 

Dear Piravi Perumal,

You have written something interesting here. May I please ask your opinion on the moot case? Thanks a lot ....

 Hi, Raman sir, 

thanx. Your reply is useful. I agree that i did not know the details of Akshay's case . I simply had read in news papers that his wife unzipped his jeans and there was a  case filed for that. Idid not know about expressions and all...

Piravi Sir, As Raman sir said, after reading your eply I did not understand what is opinion on my moot problem in specific..

 Hi Raman sir, thanx for the reply. It is useful. i di not know about the details of Akshay's case... I was aware that  a case has been filed against them for unzipping the jeans at a fashion show and at the first reading it seems similar...

Suchitra, please present the details of the final argument of the case when it is over, decided cases those have been used in it and the opinion of the judges etc ... I would appreciate your help.

 yes.. i will do..