In a recent case (Lalita Bais & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra), the Bombay High Court made a significant statement by quashing a first information report (FIR) against five individuals accused of watching a dance performance by women in short clothing and showering fake currency notes on them as they danced.
The Nagpur bench of the High Court, consisting of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Sa Menezes, expressed that it recognizes the prevailing norms of morality in Indian society, but it has become increasingly common and acceptable for women to wear revealing attire, including swimming costumes.
The Court stated, “We are of the considered opinion that the acts referred to in the complaint/FIR, namely wearing short skirts, dancing provocatively, or making gestures that the police officials consider obscene, cannot be deemed per se obscene acts, which could cause annoyance to any member of the public.”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that it would be regressive to adopt a narrow view of what constitutes obscenity solely based on a police officer’s personal opinion. Instead, it advocated a progressive approach, ensuring that the determination of obscenity is not left solely in the hands of law enforcement.
The Court highlighted that such attire and behavior are often witnessed in films that pass censorship or at beauty pageants held in public view, without causing annoyance to the audience. Therefore, it concluded that the provisions of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to obscenity do not apply to such situations.
The case revolved around a raid at a banquet hall in Tirkhura’s Tiger Paradise Resort and Water Park in Nagpur district. Six women were found dancing in short clothing and making provocative gestures, while the customers showered them with fake currency notes. The prosecution argued that this justified registering an FIR under Section 294 (obscene acts and songs in public) of the IPC.
However, the Court noted that the FIR did not allege that the accused had engaged in acts of obscenity or caused annoyance to the public. Therefore, it concluded that the elements of an offense under Section 294 were not established in the complaint, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Advocate AA Naik represented the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor SS Doifode appeared for the State
