Criminal Liability For Breaches Of Public Morality, Decency, And Prohibited Substances

12 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

⚖️ 1. Introduction

Criminal liability for acts against public morality and decency arises when conduct, although perhaps not directed against a specific individual, threatens social order, decency, or public values. Such offences are usually categorized under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (in India, for instance), or under equivalent criminal statutes in other common law jurisdictions.

Similarly, offences relating to prohibited substances involve the production, possession, sale, or use of banned drugs or intoxicants, as regulated under laws such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

⚖️ 2. Legal Framework (India as Example)

(a) Under the IPC:

Section 292–294 IPC: Obscenity, sale, or public exhibition of obscene material; obscene songs or acts in public.

Section 377 IPC (before decriminalization of consensual homosexuality): “Unnatural offences” against public morality.

Section 268 IPC: Public nuisance.

Section 509 IPC: Insulting the modesty of a woman.

(b) Under Special Laws:

NDPS Act, 1985 – Prohibits manufacture, possession, sale, and consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 – Criminalizes indecent depiction of women in media or publications.

⚖️ 3. Case Law Analysis

Let’s go through six landmark cases that illustrate different aspects of criminal liability for breaches of public morality, decency, and dealing in prohibited substances.

Case 1: Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 881)

Facts:
A bookseller was prosecuted under Section 292 IPC for selling the novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover, which was considered obscene due to explicit sexual descriptions.

Issue:
Whether the sale of a literary work containing sexual content amounts to an offence of obscenity.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, applying the “Hicklin Test” (from English law: R. v. Hicklin, 1868). It held that obscenity is judged by its potential to “deprave and corrupt” those susceptible to immoral influences. The court acknowledged the need to balance freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)) with public morality (Article 19(2)).

Principle:
Even literary works may attract criminal liability if their dominant effect is to corrupt public morals.

Case 2: Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014) 4 SCC 257

Facts:
A magazine published a nude photograph of Boris Becker and his fiancée to highlight racism in sports. A complaint was filed under Section 292 IPC for obscenity.

Issue:
Whether publishing such a photograph constituted obscenity or was protected under freedom of expression.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the photograph was intended to convey a social message and not to arouse sexual prurience. The Court replaced the outdated “Hicklin Test” with the “Contemporary Community Standards Test.”

Principle:
Obscenity must be judged contextually — not every depiction of nudity is obscene; intent and context are crucial.

Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991) 1 SCC 57

Facts:
A police inspector was accused of attempting to outrage the modesty of a woman. The High Court doubted the victim’s credibility because she was of “questionable character.”

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that even a woman of “easy virtue” is entitled to privacy and protection of her modesty. The offence under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty) depends on the act of the accused, not on the character of the woman.

Principle:
Public decency laws protect all individuals, irrespective of social or moral judgments about them.

Case 4: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)

Facts:
Commander Nanavati, a naval officer, killed his wife’s lover after learning of her affair. He claimed it was a crime of passion committed under “grave and sudden provocation.”

Relevance to Public Morality:
The case raised questions about moral conduct, adultery, and public decency in marital relationships. Although primarily a homicide case, it highlighted how breaches of morality can intersect with criminal liability.

Judgment:
Nanavati was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC. The court held that moral outrage or emotional distress does not justify taking the law into one’s hands.

Principle:
Moral lapses (like adultery) do not legalize retaliatory crimes — criminal law separates moral guilt from legal guilt.

Case 5: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172

Facts:
The accused were caught with heroin under the NDPS Act. They contended that their rights were violated as they weren’t informed of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory. Non-compliance renders the search illegal, and the accused cannot be convicted.

Principle:
In drug-related offences, strict procedural compliance is essential — moral outrage over drug use cannot override due process.

Case 6: Union of India v. Bal Mukund (2009) 12 SCC 161

Facts:
Accused were convicted for possession of narcotic substances. The question was whether they had conscious possession of the drugs.

Judgment:
The Court emphasized that mere physical possession without knowledge is insufficient. The prosecution must prove mens rea — knowledge and intention to possess the contraband.

Principle:
Criminal liability for prohibited substances requires proof of knowledge and intent, reinforcing that morality alone does not define guilt — legal standards do.

⚖️ 4. Analysis and Connection Between Morality, Decency, and Criminal Law

Area	Example of Offence	Legal Focus	Key Case
Obscenity & Decency	Displaying obscene material	Public morals & decency	Ranjit D. Udeshi, Aveek Sarkar
Sexual Morality	Outraging modesty, indecent acts	Respect for dignity	Madhukar Narayan Mardikar
Private Morality & Retaliation	Crimes of passion	Control of personal vengeance	K.M. Nanavati
Prohibited Substances	Possession or trafficking of drugs	Public health & order	Baldev Singh, Bal Mukund

⚖️ 5. Conclusion

Criminal liability for breaches of public morality and decency is aimed not at private conduct but at acts that offend the collective conscience of society. Similarly, liability for prohibited substances serves the state’s interest in maintaining public health and order.

However, courts have consistently emphasized:

The balance between morality and fundamental rights (especially freedom of expression).

The need for intent and procedural fairness before imposing criminal sanctions.

In sum, criminal law does not punish immorality per se — it penalizes acts that threaten the public moral fabric, safety, or decency of the community.