For the purposes of this assignment, it’s important to discuss the publication of the video in

contention that needs to be separated from the film. We need to make this distinction before we
start because the music video published on the online video portal YouTube, can be accessed and
viewed at any time by any individual regardless of whether they take into consideration the film.
Hence, it serves as its own piece of publication as a music video accessible to all. It is also
logical to infer that the music video has a higher probability of being watched by a larger
audience as it isn’t behind a paywall or any other such tertiary restrictions and serves as a piece
of media in its own right.
The music video under scrutiny here is of the song ‘Dreamum Wakeupum’ in the film ‘Aiyyaa’.
The video depicts a scarcely dressed woman and man, depicting a variety of physical actions
including but not limited to, thumping and pumping, of the pelvic region of the body. This is
combined with other sexually suggestive movements in addition to the cleavage on display by
the woman and man. The language of the song alludes to a woman waking up from a dream in a
‘critical condition’ and ‘quivering below’ filled with ‘kami sutram’ (sexual passion) when
confronted by the ‘man of her dreams’. This along with ‘size matters’ and ‘thundering thighs’
paint a very apparent sexual image complimenting the physical body movements as described
earlier. Moreover, the words jumping, pumping, throbbing and thumping are used with the aid of
suggestive imagery to depict a sexual atmosphere. Lastly, the phrase ‘love lust to double the fun,
it's so stern’ leaves no room for ambiguity and are directly addresses the lustful sexual desire of
the woman being portrayed.
Hicklin:
Now, the video in question involves two potentially obscene elements, the language used, and
the imagery depicted. The sum of these parts paints a picture of sexually suggestive actions.
When we apply the Hicklin test as laid down in Regina v. Hicklin, 1868 and used in Ranjit
Udeshi 1, we can observe that the combination of these words and imagery paints a picture of
sexual excitement that can deprave the minds of a young and impressionable audience. The ratio
made it exceedingly clear that when the sexual nature of a publication is the only thing which
appeals to the ordinary man, then obscenity is satisfied. We can observe this when Justice
Hidayatullah notes of the book therein, “The divagations with sex are not a legitimate
embroidery but they are the only attractions to the common man”. Also, under Section 292 of
the Indian Penal Code 2, the nature of the video ‘appeals to the prurient interest’ of the
ordinary man, and can also ‘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.’ We
can observe this as the video being not age-restricted and free for all to consume, will inevitably
find itself being consumed by the immature and impressionable minds of this country where they
would gain a sense of sexual excitement from the imagery created. Furthermore, the ‘ordinary
man’ as described in the statute is also a critical point to consider. According to legal precedence,
the test has to be conducted on an ordinary person, not a hypersensitive individual. In order to
decide the issue more effectively and equitably, we need to act in the role of a common, cautious
person, and then decide the effect. Under TVF Media Labs Private Limited v. State (Govt of
NCT of Delhi) 3, the ratio made it clear that, since there was no notice or disclaimer indicating
the media was intended for viewers who were 18 years or older, the impressionable minds were
those who were most likely to be affected or corrupted. Hence, under the facts, legal reasoning
and judicial precedents, this piece of media will satisfy the Hicklin test and is obscene.
Community Standards:
Now, even if we apply this test as observed under Aveek Sarkar 4, we can still construe the
media as obscene. Even if the larger context is taken into consideration, the music video stands
as a piece of media that can be consumed more readily in isolation than not. Hence, the tendency
to arouse overt sexual feelings in the average person still exists. We need to realize that the court
never explicitly alluded to the ordinary man as being an average liberal person, rather it merely
observed that such a person needs to belong to contemporary community standards of India.
Hence, the average person of contemporary community standards to which this media is made
available can still be incited by the sexual imagery. In the ratio, we can see this in explicit terms ,
“Only those sex-related materials which have a tendency of “exciting lustful thoughts” can be
held to be obscene, but the obscenity has to be judged from the point of view of an average
person, by applying contemporary community standards.” There can be no doubt that the music
video tended to excite lustful thoughts as it used such words and imagery both explicitly and
implicitly. Thus, the intention behind the song and its tendency to arouse overt sexual desire in
the minds of the contemporary average person is enough for it to be considered obscene even
under the Community Standards test.
Conclusion:
Indian citizens have the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution, but it is limited when it conflicts with public order, decency and morality. It is
important to find a delicate balance between the right to free speech, the right to free expression,
and the obligation to disseminate information to everyone without censoring it for obscenity,
profanity, lasciviousness, or sexual explicitness. Even if the judiciary cannot create a perfect
society of perfect people through orders or any other plan, the law and rules need to be
appropriately tailored to ensure that there is no degrading and depravity brought on by the use of
unrestrained obscenity, profanity, and foul language in open-access social media platforms
without violating anyone's fundamental rights. This is why while free expression is a crucial
pillar of democracy, it cannot and must not corrupt the free minds of the Indian populace, whose
protection becomes the utmost priority and the intent behind the legislation for obscenity.

1. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 52.

2. The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, INDIA CODE, http://indiacode.nic.in.
3. TVF Media Labs Private Limited v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1382.
4. Aveek Sarkar v. State of W.B., (2014) 4 SCC 257.