Supreme Court Rules That Swearing Is Vulgar But Not Obscene

Words uttered in anger are seldom elegant. They may be rude, offensive, and even shocking. Yet, there is a vital distinction between what is merely vulgar and what is legally obscene. By drawing that distinction with clarity, the Supreme Court has performed an important service to both free speech and the criminal justice system. The use of swear words, profanities, and vulgar expletives is certainly not a mark of civility. Such language is distasteful and has no place in courteous public discourse. However, human beings are not always calm or rational. Heated arguments often produce words that would never have been spoken after reflection. The law has long recognised this difference between impulsive conduct and deliberate wrongdoing. A murder committed in a sudden fit of rage attracts a different degree of culpability from one that is meticulously planned. The same principle should inform the criminalisation of speech.

It is in this context that the apex court’s recent judgement assumes significance. A bench headed by Justice Sanjay Karol interpreted Section 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code and its corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deal with obscene acts and utterances. The case arose from a land dispute in Tamil Nadu in which one party repeatedly hurled a notorious four-letter abuse at another during a quarrel in 2017. The court rightly held that merely using foul language does not automatically amount to obscenity. Quoting dictionaries, it reiterated that obscenity must satisfy the “community standards test”. The expression must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, and possess the tendency to deprave and corrupt those who hear or read it. It must also genuinely cause annoyance to others. In the case before it, the words used by the now 70-year-old accused were described as “at best, abusive or vulgar in nature”, falling well short of the legal threshold of obscenity.

The ruling is consistent with earlier judicial pronouncements, recognising that obscenity is not a fixed concept. Standards of morality evolve with time and vary across societies. Customs, traditions, social background, and the setting in which words are spoken all influence whether something is obscene. The court has also consistently distinguished vulgarity from obscenity. Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion, but obscenity is something that corrupts morals and appeals to prurient instincts. The changing fortunes of Lady Chatterley’s Lover illustrate how society’s perceptions of obscenity evolve over time. The judgement should serve as a reminder to the police that criminal law is not a weapon for punishing every instance of bad manners. Offensive language deserves social disapproval, but only speech that crosses the carefully defined legal threshold should invite criminal prosecution. Such restraint is essential in a democracy that values both decency and freedom of expression.