The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986
Introduction
The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 was enacted by the Indian Parliament to prohibit indecent representation of women through advertisements, publications, writings, paintings, figures, or in any other manner.
The main purpose of the Act is to protect the dignity of women and prevent their exploitation in print, electronic, and later digital media.
Key Objectives
To prohibit the indecent representation of women in advertisements and publications.
To regulate and restrict the publication or distribution of obscene material depicting women.
To safeguard women’s dignity and respect in public spaces and media.
To punish individuals or institutions involved in promoting obscenity in the name of art, fashion, cinema, or advertising.
Important Definitions
Indecent representation of women – means the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body, in such a way that it is derogatory, denigrating, or likely to corrupt or deprave the mind of the audience.
Advertisement – includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, or other documents, and also any visible representation made by light, sound, smoke, or gas.
Main Provisions
Prohibition of advertisements – No person shall publish, exhibit, or advertise any matter containing indecent representation of women (Sec. 3).
Prohibition of books, pamphlets, and materials – No person shall produce, sell, distribute, or circulate any material that contains indecent representation of women (Sec. 4).
Exemptions – Certain materials are exempt, for example:
Scientific, literature, art, or learning purposes.
Materials kept in the interest of religion, culture, or tradition.
Penalties –
First conviction: imprisonment up to 2 years + fine up to ₹2000.
Second/subsequent conviction: imprisonment up to 5 years + fine up to ₹5000 to ₹10,000.
Powers of search and seizure – Authorized police officers can search premises and seize objectionable material (Sec. 5–7).
Case Laws
Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014, SC)
A German magazine published a nude photograph of Boris Becker with his fiancée, which was reproduced in Sportsworld magazine in India.
A complaint was filed under this Act.
The Supreme Court held that nudity per se is not obscene unless it arouses sexual desire or depraves the mind. Since the photograph was published in a healthy manner to protest racism, it was not considered indecent representation.
Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (2007, SC)
Petitioner complained against sexually explicit materials in newspapers.
The Supreme Court observed that the press has freedom of expression, but it should not publish material that corrupts young minds. The Court emphasized the balance between freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and public decency.
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965, SC) (though this was under IPC Sec. 292, it influenced interpretation under this Act).
Concerned the sale of the book “Lady Chatterley’s Lover.”
Court held that if a work tends to deprave and corrupt, it can be restricted.
Criticism of the Act
The Act was enacted in 1986, long before the digital age. It does not effectively cover online content, OTT platforms, or social media.
The definition of "indecent representation" is vague and can be misused.
It sometimes clashes with freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Conclusion
The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 was a progressive law aimed at protecting women from vulgar and indecent portrayal in media and advertisements. Courts have tried to interpret the Act in a balanced way, ensuring both protection of women’s dignity and freedom of expression. However, with the rise of digital media, the Act requires modern amendments to stay effective.
RELATED Blog
0 comments