Legislation, Customs, Right and duty correlation for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

The Court had observed in Aveek Sarkar that the decisions in such cases must be taken keeping in mind the contemporary national standards and not that of a group of sensitive persons.

In a continuously evolving society, which changes with every passing day, having a fixed standard for determining a crime that is based on the perspective and acceptance of the society is wrong. Society will never accept murder, or rape. But if a filmmaker attempts to portray the sufferings of a Phoolan Devi, the society may not have accepted it then but criticizes the decision today. If a photographer wishes to send a message against domestic violence through the bruised bare back of a woman, the picture must be seen in the context of the message and not in isolation.

The Supreme Court by striking down the Hicklin test and upholding the more adaptive Community Standards test has done an admirable job. If society accepts the portrayal of sexual activities on the silver screen, the court must not strike it down for the sake of a few sensitive persons. If it is acceptable to society in general, the court must accept it too. Materials may sometimes have content that is not acceptable to society, like frontal female nudity is not acceptable in India but it is acceptable in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. In such scenarios, one needs to look into the bigger picture, the message being conveyed through the otherwise obscene material. The message should be beneficial and helpful to society. People should have the freedom to send a message to society through images/films/paintings/writings which if seen in isolation would be considered obscene or lascivious. It is important to see the full picture instead of squinting our eyes at certain sexually explicit scenes. The Court was justified in upholding the rights of the creators in Aveek Sarkar and Bobby International case.

Question:

When content is judged to be obscene or not, the question of its contravention of the freedom of speech is always questioned. However, the definition of “obscene” evolves.

Decide what you infer from this statement.

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

The Court had observed in Aveek Sarkar that the decisions in such cases must be taken keeping in mind the contemporary national standards and not that of a group of sensitive persons.

In a continuously evolving society, which changes with every passing day, having a fixed standard for determining a crime that is based on the perspective and acceptance of the society is wrong. Society will never accept murder, or rape. But if a filmmaker attempts to portray the sufferings of a Phoolan Devi, the society may not have accepted it then but criticizes the decision today. If a photographer wishes to send a message against domestic violence through the bruised bare back of a woman, the picture must be seen in the context of the message and not in isolation.

The Supreme Court by striking down the Hicklin test and upholding the more adaptive Community Standards test has done an admirable job. If society accepts the portrayal of sexual activities on the silver screen, the court must not strike it down for the sake of a few sensitive persons. If it is acceptable to society in general, the court must accept it too. Materials may sometimes have content that is not acceptable to society, like frontal female nudity is not acceptable in India but it is acceptable in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. In such scenarios, one needs to look into the bigger picture, the message being conveyed through the otherwise obscene material. The message should be beneficial and helpful to society. People should have the freedom to send a message to society through images/films/paintings/writings which if seen in isolation would be considered obscene or lascivious. It is important to see the full picture instead of squinting our eyes at certain sexually explicit scenes. The Court was justified in upholding the rights of the creators in Aveek Sarkar and Bobby International case.

Question:

X works at an advertising agency that gets a contract from a pharmaceutical company. X is now assigned the task of developing advertisements for condoms. X develops a highly creative advert with the tagline “Be Safe, Enjoy Sex”. Y is an old person who gets to see this ad in a newspaper. He thinks the advertisement is not good for the public as it would lead to a perversion of young minds. Y files a suit against X, the advertising agency and the pharmaceutical brand. Decide.