Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc
Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with sale, etc., of obscene books, etc. For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect o The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
[(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.]
[(2)] Whoever-
(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, reduces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or
(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or
(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are, for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed,
publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or
(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or
(e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section,
shall be punished 1 [on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees].
[Exception-This section does not extend to-
(a) any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure-
(i) the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern, or
(ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes;
(b) any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in-
(i) any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958), or
(ii) any temple, or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose.]]
Section 292, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 294 Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 8
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 94 Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 108 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 94 Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 108 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 94 Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forgeddocuments, etc
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 108 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditiousmatters
- Crpc 1973 s. 94 Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc
- Crpc 1973 s. 108 Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an alleged offence pertains to obscene material in electronic form, the offence falls exclusively under the special provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (specifically Sections 67, 67A, and 67B), and not under the general provisions of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. The IT Act, being a special enactment with specific provisions for electronic records and containing an overriding effect clause (Section 81), prevails over the IPC. Therefore, an accused who has been discharged from prosecution under Section 67 of the IT Act cannot subsequently be prosecuted under Section 292 IPC for the same conduct involving obscene material in electronic form. The principle that special laws prevail over general laws, particularly when both contain non-obstante clauses, mandates that the IT Act provisions apply to electronic records, and the protection and effect of Section 79 (intermediary protection) cannot be ignored or negated.
On this section: Provision dealing with sale, distribution, and circulation of obscene books and objects. Court held that when offence pertains to electronic records, Section 67 IT Act applies instead, not Section 292 IPC
-
Aveek Sarkar vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A publication or photograph depicting nudity or semi-nudity cannot be deemed obscene under Section 292 IPC merely because it shows nude or semi-nude figures. Obscenity must be determined by applying contemporary community standards, not the Hicklin test. The court must examine the photograph in the context of the message it seeks to convey and the background in which it appears. Only if the material has a tendency to excite lustful thoughts in the average person, judged by contemporary community standards, can it be considered obscene. If the material serves a higher social purpose such as protesting racism and promoting love across racial boundaries, and does not have inherent tendency to deprave or corrupt, it cannot be held obscene. The context, message, and purpose are integral to determining whether material is obscene.
On this section: Defines and penalizes obscene materials. The Court interpreted Section 292(1) to require that material be lascivious, appeal to prurient interest, and tend to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read or see it. The Court held that the test must apply community standards, not susceptibility of weak-minded individuals.
-
Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul v. State of Odisha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail refused in a rape/IT-Act pornography case. The Court recognised a victim's right to be forgotten / right to erasure as part of Article 21 privacy (Puttaswamy applied) against non-consensual circulation of intimate images, while holding that CrPC 439 bail could not be used to force takedown as a condition in lieu of custody analysis. AFR full judgment of S.K. Panigrahi J. Do not use same-date order-7.pdf (unverified).
On this section: Obscenity (IPC 292) paralleled the IT Act counts on the circulated images.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Technology Act, 2000, has been widely worded, it does not cover a case where a person has merely downloaded in his electronic gadget, a child pornography and he has watched the same without doing anything more." (iii) Lastly, the High Court in light of its aforesaid discussion and by placing reliance on Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the " IPC ") took the view that although the pornographic content was found to have been downloaded and stored in the mobile phone of the respondent no. 1 yet in the absence of any material to show that the respondent no. 1 had transmitted or published the same, no …
-
… This freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions which may be thought necessary in the interest of the general public and one such is the interest of public decency and morality. Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code manifestly embodies such a restriction because the law against obscenity, of course, correctly understood and applied, seeks no more than to promote public decency and morality. The word obscenity is really not vague because it is a word which is well understood even if persons differ in …
-
… This freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions which may be thought necessary in the interest of the general public and one such is the interest of public decency and morality. Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code manifestly embodies such a restriction because the law against obscenity, of course, correctly understood and applied, seeks no more than to promote public decency and morality. The word obscenity is really not vague because it is a word which is well understood even if persons differ in …
Questions about Section 292
What have the courts held on Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi (14 Dec 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provision dealing with sale, distribution, and circulation of obscene books and objects. Court held that when offence pertains to electronic records, Section 67 IT Act applies instead, not Section 292 IPC. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 292, section 292 IPC, section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 292 and 293 and ipc 292 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi (14 Dec 2016).
What should I read with Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
8 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 294 (Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called obscenity, and cited as IPC 292, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.