Law relating to depiction of obscenity and contemporary modern art was discussed in the recent Delhi High Court decision (decided on 8th May 2008) concerning the obscene paintings of Hindu Goddessess by legendry artist M.F.Hussain. The court opined:-"In a free and democratic society , tolerance is vital. This is true especially in large and complex societies like ours where people with varied beliefs and interests mingle."
The court heavily relied on the concept of modern contemporary art and accepted the fact that -nudity is one its part. The court should have explained this in better manner in their judgement.
In my opinion there is no denying the fact that nudity is one of the important facet of modern contemporary art, but it should not in any manner hit the public sentiments as to social customs and ethos , religious practices, moral and cultural aptitude of the contemporary society viewed from the eyes of a reasonable and average man of society regardless of caste, color or creed.
The court also posed an issue- whether disputes such as these are pillar to post an information age where our laws does not adequetly protect creative people? The Judge (S.K.Koul J.) clearly misjudged this issue. Our laws are well drafted and adequate for the modern artists. They are nowhere hindering their progress. These 'arts' cannot overprogress and in turn take the society back to hobesian era.
There are various sentiments involved as to goddessess in India. She is treated as the mother in the Hindu household and no Hindu or for that matter a person of any faith would like to see the nude portrait of her/his mother. Every freedom should function under the rule of law. Nude depection in modern art cannot and should not trangress over the religious and personal sentiments of the people.
If contemporary modern art is like that, be it like that, it can depict nudity, nobody stops it from, but it should in no way corrupt the morals of the society, it should be in harmony with the thought process of the society. The courts have no power to legalise the act or art which is per se illegal or ulawful. The court should protect the rule of law and not make the wrong law. The Judge in the present case have committed the gross error. He has mis interpreted the legislative intent under section 292 of Indian Penal Code,1860 too. The aggrieved party in my opinion should now approach the honorable Supreme Court and hope that the SC upheld the rule of law and not the rule of nudity in contemporary modern art.
