Abusive or vulgar words alone do not attract Section 294(b), Supreme Court holds

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside a man’s conviction under Section 294(b) IPC, holding that vulgarity is not obscenity in law.

The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line between obscenity and mere abuse, ruling that swear words used during a quarrel do not by themselves make out an offence of uttering obscene words in a public place. In Mani @ Subramaniyam v. State, decided on 17 July 2026, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the conviction of a roughly 70-year-old man under Section 294(b) IPC. The Court held that abusive or vulgar language, however distasteful, is not obscene unless it is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt, and unless it caused annoyance to others in a public place. The Court also set aside his conviction under Section 506(ii) IPC for criminal intimidation, while confirming his conviction under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt.

How the dispute reached the Court

The case arose from an altercation over a land dispute. On 22 August 2017, the appellant allegedly quarrelled with the complainant’s brother-in-law. Two days later, on 24 August 2017, he is said to have abused the complainant’s nephew (PW-4). When the complainant (PW-1) intervened, the appellant allegedly used obscene words and caste-based slurs, then brought a billhook from his house and assaulted PW-1 on the forehead, nose and left thumb.

An FIR was registered on 24 August 2017 under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC and provisions of the SC/ST Act 2015. The charge under Section 324 was later altered to Section 326 IPC given the grievous injuries. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and exhibited 14 documents; the defence led no evidence.

The Trial Court, by judgment dated 16 November 2018, convicted the appellant under Section 294(b) IPC, provisions of the SC/ST Act 2015, and Sections 326 and 506(ii) IPC read with the SC/ST Act. The Madras High Court, on 13 August 2024, acquitted him of the SC/ST Act offences but confirmed convictions under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC, while reducing the sentence. Neither the State nor the complainant appealed the acquittal under the SC/ST Act. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. Senior counsel Shailesh Madiyal appeared as amicus curiae.

Why obscenity is not the same as vulgarity

The Court framed the issue as whether the convictions under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC could be sustained. On Section 294(b), it set out the two ingredients: an obscene act or utterance in or near a public place, and resulting annoyance to others.

Since the IPC does not define “obscene”, the Court drew on its jurisprudence under Section 292 IPC. It traced the Hicklin test adopted in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, where a Constitution Bench held obscenity is that which tends to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds. It noted Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar and Aveek Sarkar v. State of W.B., the latter adopting the community standard test over Hicklin.

The Court held that obscenity is not synonymous with vulgarity, abuse or profanity. Relying on Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, it observed that vulgar or unconventional language may cause disgust or revulsion without amounting to obscenity. It cited Madhanagopal v. Lalitha, which requires a lascivious element capable of arousing sexual thoughts, and Apoorva Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi), where expletives were held to reflect anger or frustration rather than sexual connotation.

Applying the test to the words used

The words attributed to the appellant during the altercation were, in the Court’s assessment, “at best, abusive or vulgar in nature.” Referring to dictionary meanings of “abusive” and “vulgar”, the Court said such words may be insulting or unpleasant without being obscene in law.

Even accepting the allegations in full, the Court found nothing to show the words were lascivious, appealed to prurient interests, or had the tendency to deprave and corrupt. It also found it was “nobody’s case” that the words caused annoyance to others in a public place, a mandatory ingredient. The offence under Section 294(b) IPC was therefore not made out.

Criminal intimidation and grievous hurt

On Section 506(ii) IPC, the Court found the charge rested primarily on PW-1’s statement that the appellant waved the billhook and threatened to hack him. The Court held that mere threatening words during an altercation, without proof of intent to cause alarm or to compel an act or omission, do not attract the provision. Relying on Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., it set aside the conviction under Section 506(ii) IPC.

On Section 326 IPC, the Court took a different view. PW-1 deposed to being assaulted with a billhook on the forehead, nose and left thumb, corroborated by PW-3 and PW-4. Dr. R. Dhinakar (PW-2) recorded lacerations and, on CT scan, a fractured nasal bone, which the Court held squarely falls within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC. Rejecting the argument that Section 326 required incised wounds, the Court affirmed the conviction under Section 326 IPC.

Order

The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the convictions under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, while affirming the conviction under Section 326 IPC. Considering that the incident arose from a land dispute, the appellant’s age of about 70 years and his health condition, the Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court on a day to be specified by the concerned Court, with a fine of Rs.50,000 to be paid within two months. Pending applications were disposed of.