Section 3. Prohibition of advertisements containing indecent representation of women
No person shall publish, or cause to be published, or arrange or take part in the publication or exhibition of, any advertisement which contains indecent representation of women in any form.
How courts have applied section 3
- Bail was allowed where there was no concrete proof of the petitioner publishing or leaking obscene material.1
- A secondary or technical role in the alleged offence, with the investigation substantially complete, supported bail.2
- Parity with co-accused already granted bail was a ground for release.3,2
- The standard for obscenity is whether content is lascivious and appeals to prurient interest, not mere vulgarity or profanity.4
- Continuation of a second FIR for the same facts after a conviction for the identical offence was held to be an abuse of process and quashed.5
- Where the complainant turned hostile and trial was delayed, bail was granted.6
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here deal almost entirely with pre-trial liberty and procedural challenges in cases where Section 3 is charged alongside provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Penal Code, rather than with the meaning of the section itself. Bail was allowed in several cases on grounds such as absence of concrete proof of publication or leaking of obscene material, investigation being substantially complete with the charge sheet filed, parity with co-accused already released, delay in arrest or naming of the applicant, the complainant turning hostile, and the applicant's role being secondary or technical.7,3,2,1,8,6
The only substantive interpretation of the standard for indecency appears in the context of the parallel obscenity provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Penal Code, where the Supreme Court held that the enquiry is whether the content is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt, judged from the standard of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence, examining the material in the context of the work as a whole; vulgarity and profanity that evoke disgust, revulsion or shock are not the relevant standards. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court dismissed the prosecution's appeal holding that suspicions cannot take the place of proof where the medical report did not corroborate the timeline and no obscene material was found on the seized mobile phones.4,9
On procedure, one Division Bench disposed of a public interest litigation alleging faulty implementation of Sections 3 and 4 in a State, seeking prohibitions against publication on social media and directions for publicity. In another matter, criminal proceedings were quashed where a petitioner, already convicted for an identical offence of disfiguring public places by sticking indecent posters, faced a second FIR for the same facts, the court holding that registration of multiple crimes on the same allegation is impermissible. Where a prayer to quash a charge sheet was relinquished, the court directed that a bail application filed within two weeks be considered per guidelines, with no coercive action in the interim. An investigation in a second FIR regarding repeated cyber harassment was transferred to a cyber crime police station with directions to block objectionable social media posts.10,5,7,11
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
Supreme Court (Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.; judgment by Narasimha, J.) allowed criminal appeals and quashed FIR u/ss.67 & 67A IT Act against actors, writers, creator and media company of web-series ‘College Romance’ (Season 1, Episode 5 ‘Happily F****d Up’) for use of expletives and profane language.
AllowedOpenPunjab and Haryana High Court PIL on indecent/obscene representation of women on social media; Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986 Sections 3, 4, 6; BNS Sections 294-295; IT Act 2000 Sections 67, 67-A, 67-B; POCSO Act 2012 Sections 14, 19, 20, 44; BNSS Sections 107, 115; writ of prohibition;
DisposedOpenApplicant sought quashing of a charge sheet and criminal proceedings in a cheating and obscenity case but relinquished the quashing prayer, opting to seek bail before the trial court per Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines; court allowed two weeks to appear and barred coercive action meanwhile.
Bail granted during trial; delayed arrest after one and a half years; confession-only evidence; Section 26 Indian Evidence Act bar urged by defence; parity with co-accused bail orders dated 30.11.2023 and 10.01.2024 (Rafiulla, Jasveer Singh, Riyaz); criminal history of six cases explained; custody since 10.9.2022;
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal. The Court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in medical evidence, lack of recovered obscene content on seized devices, and failure to ascertain the…
DismissedOpenThe High Court transferred a second FIR for cyber harassment and attempted intimidation from local police to the Cyber Crime Police Station, Calcutta, and ordered specific safety measures for the petitioner including dedicated police contact and social media monitoring.
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Second bail application allowed; revival of bail after material witnesses examined and cross-examined; offences under Sections 420, 376, 377, 323, 504, 506 IPC with unlawful conversion of religion and indecent representation of women statutes; prosecutrix's prior marriage and contradictions in evidence;
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to the petitioner facing charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Indecent Representation of Women Act. The court imposed stringent conditions to prevent witness intimidation and instructed the surrender of weapons.
AllowedOpenThe Single Judge allowed bail application of accused Ravi Ranjan Shamsundar Kumar @ Rocky Singh still in custody. The court noted a significant delay in naming the applicant and alleging rape against him, observing that the Charge Sheet investigation was complete.
AllowedOpenThis is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The High Court allowed regular bail as the prosecutrix turned hostile and the trial would be lengthy, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety.
AllowedOpenHigh Court allowed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused alleged to have shared obscene images. Court relied on Investigating Agency report and prosecutrix's denial of possessing mobile phone to conclude lack of concrete proof against petitioner.
AllowedOpenThe High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 406 of 2016. The REGISTER OF CASES states that the petitioner was already convicted for the identical offence (disfiguring public place by pasting indecent posters) in a previous case, and multiple crimes on the same…
AllowedOpen
Social media defamation; YouTube takedown; Grievance Redressal Officer; Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021; Information Technology Act Sections 67A, 67B; Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 Section 98;
Social media defamation; YouTube takedown; Grievance Redressal Officer; Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021; Information Technology Act Sections 67A, 67B; Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 Section 98;
Mohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpenMohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpenMohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpenMohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Mohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpenMohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpenMohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpenMohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpen