.png)
The author of this blog is Deepika Dhankani, she is a second year law student at New Law College, BVP, Pune.
INTRODUCTION
The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, which came into force on October 2, 1987, following the President's assent on December 23, 1986, comprises a total of 10 sections. It applies to the entirety of India, with the exception of Jammu and Kashmir, which was omitted from its purview subsequent to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019.
This act's primary goal is to prohibit the negative or disrespectful portrayal of women in writing, art, advertising, publications, figures, and other media. The act aims to give respect to women and to protect their integrity and dignity. This act also promotes gender equality. This act was made in response to the feminist movement's criticism of how women are portrayed in the media.
CONTEMPORARY POSITION
The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, was amended in 2021 to make it more effective in preventing the objectification of women. The revised act broadens the definition of “indecent representation,” which includes more things that can objectify and sexualize the image of women. The use of electronic communication is also included, which can transmit or publish material related to demeaning the image of women.
The act imposes penalties for repeat offenders, which include a maximum sentence of seven years in prison and a maximum fine of twenty lakhs, and for first-time offenders, a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of up to 10 lakhs. Additionally, a committee will be formed to oversee and carry out the provisions of this act.
This act mentions three things: indecent representation, women, and prohibition. The definition of indecent representation is in partiality, as this act was made in 1986, and the definition of indecent representation can also vary on an individual basis; what might be indecent for me might not be indecent for you, and what might be indecent for you might not be indecent for me.
We are living in a globalised world where the dimensions of rights, liabilities, duties, etc. are changing with time. Every day, the Supreme Court adds new dimensions to the right to life and personal liberty. As the scope of rights widens, the dimension of some offences and things related to public morality also changes. Indecent representation can be understood by how it is defined under this act and by what is held in the landmark judgments.
PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
The Indian Penal Code prohibits publishing obscene literature, singing obscene songs, and performing obscene activities in public spaces in sections 292, 293, and 294. These rules, it was discovered, were insufficient to address the problem of indecent portraiture of women, which mostly concentrated on nudity and sexually suggestive material.
The constitutionality of the anti-obscenity section 292 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged in the case of Ranjith D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra. It was said by the judges that the definition of obscenity will evolve with time and that anything that was judged obscene at one time might not be at another. After looking over the text of Lady Chatterley's Lover, the court declared it to be obscene under Hicklin.
The Hicklin Test examines whether the impugned matter tends to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influence and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” The Hicklin test was laid down by the Queen’s Bench in Regina v. Hicklin.
Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal The appellants were accused of crimes under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, but the Supreme Court ruled that they were innocent of those charges. The image's intended message and the context in which it appears must be considered when evaluating the question of obscenity. The "community standards" test was adopted by the court in place of the Hicklin test. .
According to the community standards test, a work of art, gesture, or substance is only considered obscene if the overarching subject violates accepted social norms in the modern world.
THE RELATION BETWEEN ARTICLE 21 AND THE ACT
According to Article 21 of the Constitution, no one may be deprived of their life or personal liberty unless it is done so in accordance with a legally established process. Both non-citizens and all Indian citizens are entitled to this privilege. This article now includes the right to physical integrity, the right to privacy, the right to live with dignity, and other rights that have been expanded by the Supreme Court. However, this right is not absolute; it may be curtailed in some situations and suspended in the event of an emergency.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it was established that the right to life included not only the right to physical existence but also the right to live with human dignity. This implies that all people, regardless of socioeconomic standing, have the right to be treated with dignity and worth.
In the case of Francis Coralie v. Union of Territory of India It was decided that it encompasses more than just physical survival and includes the right to a dignified existence as well as the protection of any faculties or limbs that enable enjoyment of life and interaction with the outside world. Women belong in the human race. As a result, women have the same rights as all other people. Women have a right to a dignified existence.
In the case of Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court challenging Article 19(1)(a). According to the petition, newspaper coverage of sexually exploitative information ought to be prohibited since it poses a risk to minors. He went on to explain that the necessity to safeguard and educate children shouldn't come before the right to free speech. He believed that reading about such things in the newspapers would negatively affect the child's mental health and implant negative beliefs in their minds. He pleaded for precise rules about what publications could and could not print. Additionally, unless parental or teacher supervision is required, they must ensure that none of the content they present is inappropriate for young readers. Newspapers containing this kind of content must be packed separately and feature a disclaimer on the front page so that parents may decide whether to purchase the publication and allow their children to read it.
The Indian Penal Code's Section 292 already prohibits newspaper agencies from publishing offensive content. Furthermore, it determined that there was not enough evidence to justify restricting the freedom of speech and expression that Article 19 of the Constitution ensures. In relation to the topic of enforcing a blanket ban, the court decided that the newspaper would only publish material that would appeal to kids and not adults. The petition was dismissed since control regulations were already in place. The court determined that the content's nudity does not make it legally obscene. The aforementioned decision highlights the fundamental importance of individual liberty rights to democracy and human rights.
CHALLENGES IN THE ACT
Despite the implementation of law and stricter penalties, there has been creation and distribution of pornographic material by women under freedom of speech and expression or by identifying their work as art.
There has been exploitation of women in various forms. Use of women models to attract customers and to promote a product.
The act and its purpose are not being met because of the lack of awareness and information about it throughout this country.
Enforcement of this act can be challenging due to the wide array of media platforms; this requires significant resources and coordination.
The definition of “indecent representation” can be subjective and is open to interpretation. It can vary based on cultural, social, and individual perspectives, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement.
With the rise of social media and online platforms, controlling the dissemination of indecent representations of women has become more complex.
ILLUSTRATION & SIMPLIFIED VERSION
Imagine a big umbrella labeled as “Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act”. Under this umbrella, there are various forms of media like newspapers, magazines, TV shows, movies and online content. Each of these represents different ways women are portrayed.
Now, picture some images or scenes under this umbrella:
A magazine cover with a woman portrayed in a respectful and dignified manner, promoting her achievements or talents. A TV commercial showing a woman in a professional setting, highlighting her skills and expertise. An online advertisement featuring women in different ages, shapes, and backgrounds, promoting body positivity and inclusivity.
Contrastingly, imagine another set of images, a poster with a woman depicted in a highly sexualized or objectified manner, solely for the purpose of attracting attention. A movie scene showing women being subjected to harassment or violence for entertainment. Social media posts containing derogatory comments or memes targeting women based on their appearance or gender.
Under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, the first set of images would be considered acceptable, promoting positive and respectful portrayals of women. However, the second set of images would violate the act as they depict women in a demeaning or exploitative manner.
By this simple illustration, the concept of the act becomes more understandable, emphasizing the importance of promoting respectful and empowering representations of women in media.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the 1986 Indecent Representation of women act is to address the issue of indecent portrayals of women; however, the list is not exhaustive. It is left to the courts' interpretation. The act's proper implementation is necessary for its success. The act's penal provisions are not stringent. Therefore, strict provisions are required for appropriate regulation.
Sources:-
The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Brillopedia, 2023, https://www.brillopedia.net/post/the-indecent-representation-of-women-prohibition-act-1986.
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881.
Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 4 SCC 257.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of India, AIR 1981 SC 746.
Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, Writ Petition (civil) 384 of 2005 (Supreme Court of India).
Comments