Judging sex

Of late several complaints have been entertained and prosecutions launched against artists, film personalities and public figures for their alleged acts of obscenity.

Of late several complaints have been entertained and prosecutions launched against artists, film personalities and public figures for their alleged acts of obscenity. Kissing, hugging and nude paintings shock the magistrates who promptly trigger the criminal machinery in motion. What can be done to prevent this ridiculous state of affairs?

The first step is to educate our magistrates about the law laid down by our Supreme Court, which has repeatedly ruled that vulgarity is not synonymous with obscenity. Again, nudity by itself and without the context in which it is depicted is not obscene.

The court, in its judgment about the movie Bandit Queen, observed that nakedness does not always arouse the baser instinct, and referred to the film Schindler8217;s List, in which there is a scene of rows of naked men and women, shown frontally, being led into the gas chambers. The court observed, 8220;Tears are a likely reaction; pity, horror and a fellow feeling of shame are certain, except in the pervert who might be aroused8221;, and ruled, 8220;We do not censor to protect the pervert or to assuage the susceptibilities of the oversensitive8221;. The standard to be adopted is that of an average person of reasonable sensibilities.

The main problem is that obscenity, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. Therefore, another step should be to arrange a tour of the Khajaraho caves and the Konark temple for magistrates, which may hopefully mollify their notions of obscenity. The real problem lies in the irresistible urge of the complaining lawyers and judges for publicity and the pleasure of observing attractive celebrities at close quarters and cross-examining them. Perhaps a bit of psychoanalysis for the judicial guardians of our morals may help them to get rid of their obsession with sex and for perceiving obscenity in every nook and corner of the human anatomy.

Brevity in arguments

In the draft Constitution there was a provision that permitted the Supreme Court to make rules inter alia for the time to be allowed to advocates appearing before the court to make their submissions. The reason stated for this provision was the practice in the United States Supreme Court, where advocates are allowed only specified time for arguments. When this article came up for consideration in the Constituent Assembly on June 6, 1949, T.T. Krishnamachari moved an amendment for its deletion, which was adopted without any debate.

The founding fathers could not have visualised how the court8217;s time is wasted by lawyers, including senior counsel, by rambling and repetitive arguments and the enormous cost incurred on that account by the litigants. It is high time that the Supreme Court frames appropriate rules in this regard and the culture of brevity in arguments is instilled in the lawyers and insisted upon.

Bush8217;s gaffe

President Bush, despite his disastrous foreign policy, has some amiable characteristics, one of which is his gift for the gaffe. Way back in 1991 when the first President Bush and his wife played host to the queen, George Bush was seated far away from the Queen lest he might make a wisecrack. That did not work because he managed to tell Her Majesty that he was his family8217;s black sheep and asked 8220;Who8217;s yours?8221; The queen was not amused and replied tartly, 8220;None of your business8221;.

Story continues below this ad

At the recent state dinner hosted for the royal couple, President Bush, in his welcoming remarks stated, 8220;You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 178230;8221; , but stopped to correct himself before 1776 could slip out. Laughter erupted. The president and the queen exchanged a long silent gaze. In his embarrassment the president winked at the Queen and said, 8220;She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child8221;. The Queen was not visibly upset and probably attributed the incident to a slip of the tongue, quite aware of the notorious gaffes and slips of the tongue of her husband Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who was by her side.