HC seeks state reply on plea to curb obscenity on social media

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today sought a response from the Punjab Government and other respondents on a petition to curb allegedly obscene content on social media platforms by pressing for strict enforcement of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act-1986 and preventive-action powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The petitioner asserted that unrestricted circulation of such material was “corrupting minds” and contributing to violent crimes, including those involving children.

“Behind such incidents, there is always evil and corrupt mind. Social media platforms have not left any stone unturned in contributing to pollute the social fabric of society. It has caused a great impact on the minds of people in general because bold and obscene pictures, videos and reels are available at just a click on these platforms,” petitioner Kanwar Pahul Singh contended.

The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu recorded the petitioner’s contention that Sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act —prohibiting publication and advertisement of indecent representation of women — were not being implemented, and that Section 6 (penalty) was practically dormant. The plea also invoked the BNSS which, according to the petitioner, empowered the police to initiate preventive action to avert offences linked to obscenity.

The petitioner also sought directions to evolve and enforce preventive mechanisms, arguing that “social media has become an obscene media nowadays” where bold and obscene pictures, videos and reels were available at just a click without restrictions.

The petitioner added that it was affecting vulnerable sections, especially children. To illustrate the “corrupting impact” of such material, the petitioner cited two recent incidents. The first was the September 12, 2021, murder of a five-year-old boy, who was allegedly lured, kidnapped, sodomised and strangulated by a man “under the influence of liquor”. Acknowledging that an FIR had already been registered in that case, the petitioner said he was relying on it to demonstrate the need for preventive steps rather than case-specific relief.

He also referred to the June 10 killing of social-media influencer before asserting that she had received threats for posting “bold and obscene content” and was murdered “because she did not stop uploading such material”. He claimed that several other influencers had also been threatened “for posting vulgar and obscene reels”.