Obscenity in literature must be judged as a whole; restrained literary passages did not justify conviction.

A short story must be assessed for obscenity by reading the work as a whole, not by isolating selected passages, and by asking whether it is so gross as to tend to deprave and corrupt likely readers. The older Hicklin test was considered, but the governing standard required assessment against contemporary Indian standards of public decency and morality and the work's dominant literary setting. The references to love, attraction, kissing and sexual situations were found restrained, not vulgar, and not shown to have a corrupting effect on adolescent or adult readers. The story was therefore not obscene or pornographic, and the conviction under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the short story was obscene within the meaning of section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and liable to conviction.

Analysis: The governing approach was that obscenity must be judged by an overall reading of the work as a whole, not by isolated passages, and by asking whether the matter is so gross as to tend to deprave and corrupt those into whose hands it is likely to fall. The older Hicklin test was referred to, but the assessment had to be made with regard to contemporary Indian standards of public decency and morality and the dominant literary setting of the work. The passages complained of, including the references to love, attraction, kissing and sexual situations, were found to be restrained, not vulgar, and not shown to have the likely effect of corrupting adolescent or adult readers. The work was held not to be pornography and not to pander to prurient interest.

Conclusion: The story was not obscene, and the conviction under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could not stand.

---