Section 4. Prohibition of publication or sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc., containing indecent representation of women
No person shall produce or cause to be produced, sell, let to hire, distribute, circulate or send by post any book, pamphlet, paper, slide, film, writing, drawing, painting, photograph, representation or figure which contains indecent representation of women in any form:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to--
(a) any book, pamphlet, paper, slide, film, writing, drawing, painting, photograph, representation or figure--
(i) the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, slide, film, writing, drawing, painting, photograph, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art, or learning or other objects of general concern; or
(ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes;
(b) any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in--
(i) any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958); or
(ii) any temple, or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose;
(c) any film in respect of which the provisions of Part II of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), will be applicable.
How courts have applied section 4
- Section 4 is usually prosecuted with IT Act or Penal Code offences, and courts often decide threshold questions of whether allegations disclose an offence.1,2,3
- Nudity or semi-nudity per se is not indecent representation; context and message matter, judged by community standards.4
- Vulgarity and profanity are not per se obscene; they evoke disgust, not lust.5
- Quashing is allowed where no prima facie offence is disclosed or proceedings are mala fide, on valid settlement in matrimonial disputes, or on compromise.6,7,8
- Quashing is refused where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence or veracity can only be tested at trial.2,9
- Anticipatory bail under Section 4 is declined based on the nature and gravity of accusation and pending investigation.1,3
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements in this sample mostly concern criminal proceedings in which Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 was invoked alongside other statutes, most often the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Penal Code or Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. Courts in these orders frequently decided whether allegations under Section 4 and connected provisions disclosed an offence at the threshold, or whether proceedings should be quashed, bail refused or granted, or other incidental relief granted.1,2,3,6,4,8
A recurring question is what content constitutes indecent representation of women. One Supreme Court judgement held that obscenity under Section 292 IPC is judged by community standards, not the Hicklin test, and that nudity or semi-nudity per se is not indecent; a semi-nude photograph conveying a protest against racism was held not objectionable under Section 4. Another Supreme Court judgement held that expletives and profane language are not per se obscene, and vulgarity evokes disgust rather than lust. By contrast, allegations of hacking a phone and uploading photographs with obscene captions, operating an Instagram account promoting a nude party, and circulating an obscene video were all treated as disclosing offences under Section 4 and related provisions.4,5,10,3,2
Several judgements concern quashing of proceedings. The Supreme Court quashed complaints where allegations disclosed no prima facie offence or proceedings were mala fide. A High Court quashed a case on compromise, noting the parties had moved on. Another quashed proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute where a valid settlement existed, as continued trial would be futile. Quashing was refused where the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, where allegations disclosed offences whose veracity could only be determined at trial, and where a petition raised disputed questions of fact.6,8,7,9,2
Bail decisions under Section 4 were fact-specific. Anticipatory bail was refused considering the nature and gravity of the accusation and the accused's role, and where investigation was pending and the mobile number was registered in the applicant's name though used by his son. Bail was granted where the accused was in custody and faced allegations of uploading photographs. A parole application by a life convict charged under Section 4 was considered after the convict had served over seven years. One application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars.1,3,10,11,12
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 4
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal; quashing of 23 criminal complaints over actress's remarks on pre-marital sex and live-in relationships; s.482 CrPC inherent powers; s.199(1)(b) CrPC 'person aggrieved' and maintainability of defamation complaints; defamation s.499/500 IPC mens rea and actus reus;
AllowedOpenSupreme 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.
AllowedOpenManohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 191 of 2017 (Supreme Court of India, 28-11-2017; Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.): Art. 32 PIL concerning film 'Padmavati'; CBFC certification pending — Court refuses to pre-judge;
DismissedOpenCriminal proceedings for publishing a semi-nude photograph of Boris Becker with his fiancee, protesting racism, were quashed. The Court held obscenity must be judged by contemporary community standards of an average person, rejecting the Hicklin test; the photograph conveyed an anti-racism message and was not obscene.
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;
DisposedOpenMuskan Ikran Ahmad inter-faith live-in relationship writ petition quashing FIR mandamus arrest harassment 2025:AHC-LKO:44016-DB CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION 6838 of 2025 FIR 0311/2025 87 BNS 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act Safipur Unnao dismissed cognizable offence disputed questions of fact writ jurisdiction affidavit missing UP…
DismissedOpen
Show 6 more
Anticipatory bail rejected; CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. 6551 of 2025; Mithlesh Kumar v. State of U.P.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; order dated 14.8.2025; Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; Case Crime No. 78 of 2024; Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj; Sections 306 IPC;
Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra, J.; Order dated 19.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:39315). Charge-sheeted accused Pawan filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside/quashing of, and stay on, further proceedings in Case No. 12900 of 2022 [State of U.P.
The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under IPC and IT Act sections instituted in a matrimonial dispute. Finding that parties had settled and no conviction was likely, the Court held continuing the trial was an exercise in futility and contrary to justice.
CRLW-1616/2025; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole); second regular parole 30 days; Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules 1958 Rule 9; adverse report Superintendent of Police Kotputli-Behror; District Parole Advisory Committee; life convict; Sessions Case 132/2019;
AllowedOpenBail granted - Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (P.Vadamalai, J.), 22.08.2025, CRL OP(MD).No.13268 of 2025: Petitioner/accused, arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.07.2025 in Crime No.11 of 2025 (Inspector of Police, Trichy Police Station, CCD-III District) for offences punishable under Section 79 of…
AllowedOpenWrit petition under Article 226 by Chandrashekar Mayya, accused No.2 charge-sheeted in CC No. 9/2024 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM Court, Puttur) for offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986,…
DisposedOpen
Sunil Raye and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another
Outcome: DisposedSection 311 CrPC recall of hostile witness; recall order quashed; confrontation with Section 164 CrPC statement cannot undo trial testimony; victim declared hostile; FIR No. 455/2013 P.S. Sampoorna Nagar District Lakhimpur Kheri; Sections 323, 366, 376D, 354B, 506 IPC;
DisposedOpenAnticipatory bail application by the father of the main accused in a nude-party promotion case via an Instagram account traced to his registered mobile number. Considering the gravity of the offences and ongoing investigation, bail was rejected.
DismissedOpenSocial 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;
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) — Suo Motu TR.No.1558 of 2025 (out of C.C.No.220 of 2022, Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Kancheepuram Taluk, Kancheepuram;
DisposedOpenMuskan Ikran Ahmad inter-faith live-in relationship writ petition quashing FIR mandamus arrest harassment 2025:AHC-LKO:44016-DB CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION 6838 of 2025 FIR 0311/2025 87 BNS 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act Safipur Unnao dismissed cognizable offence disputed questions of fact writ jurisdiction affidavit missing UP…
DismissedOpen
Show 4 more
Section 223 BNSS 2023 examination of complainant on oath before cognizance; notice to accused only after sworn statement; sworn statements and complaint copy to accompany pre-cognizance notice; process issued without recording statements vitiated proceedings; complaint case registration misc case ACJM-15 Prayagraj;
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;
AllowedOpen