Ordinary meaning of obscenity led to protection of devotional idols, defeating seizure and absolute confiscation.

Obscenity under the customs notification was construed in its ordinary common parlance sense because no statutory definition was provided. Applying that standard, the appellate authority's view was upheld that confiscated Bal Ganesha or Baby Ganesha idols in a crawling posture were not obscene, as they evoked affection, worship and reverence rather than lascivious or prurient appeal. The absence of credible expert evidence or recognised institutional opinion supporting obscenity, together with no contrary evidence from the Department, meant seizure and absolute confiscation were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscated idols of Bal Ganesha or Baby Ganesha in crawling position were obscene so as to justify seizure and absolute confiscation under the customs notification.

Analysis: The appellate authority's finding that the idols were not obscene was upheld. The decision treated the expression "obscene" as requiring its ordinary common parlance meaning where the statute or notification did not define it. The idols were found to depict a child-like form evoking affection, worship and reverence rather than lasciviousness or prurient appeal. The absence of any credible expert evidence or recognised institutional opinion supporting obscenity, and the lack of contrary evidence from the Department, reinforced the conclusion that confiscation was unjustified.

Conclusion: The idols were not obscene and the seizure and confiscation were not sustainable.

---