Expressing concern over the issue of child pornography the Supreme Court had said that the right to free speech, thought and expression is not “absolute” and does not extend to viewing or compelling to watch porn in a public place.
“Innocent children cannot be made prey to this kind of painful situations and a nation cannot afford to carry on any kind of experiment with its children in the name of liberty,” said the court drawing the line on where rights end and criminality begin.
“child pornography is spreading like cancer and it would not be out of place to call it a moral cancer not on the ground of individual morality but on the foundation of obscenity which is an offence under the Indian Penal Code.” as submitted by the Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned senior counsel.
“ A distinction has to be drawn between art and obscenity. It is a tough job which has to be done,” as told by the Justice Singh.While the Supreme Court categorically stood with the Centre for ban on child pornography, the Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and S.K. Singh said a line has to be drawn between what is “obscenity and what is permissible” by the Centre.
“The Centre cannot say its hands are bound because there is no way to “define” what is pornography and what is art.” Obscenity is recognised by the law. Pornography can be obscene. Obscenity has been linked to misogynism, perversion, sadism, voyeurism. These are acts depicted in pornography which have a direct nexus with obscenity as crime under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code,” as said by Justice Misra.
The Supreme Court has ordered the Central government to outline methods to block child pornography saying that it cannot be justified as freedom of expression.