N. Radhakrishnan @ Radhakrishnan Varenickal v. Union of India and others
Background
The petitioner, acting under Article 32, sought a Supreme Court order to ban the Malayalam novel "Meesha" (Moustache), serialised in the weekly magazine Mathrubhumi, claiming a dialogue in it was derogatory to temple-going women and offensive to a particular faith. He asked the Court to direct seizure of all copies of the magazine and a permanent ban on further publication of the novel, and sought guidelines for the government to regulate such content generally.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the specific passage complained of, the overall plot of the novel, and settled case law on obscenity and artistic freedom (including the "Bandit Queen" and "Padmaavat" precedents). It held that a creative work must be read as a whole and with "empathetic" sensibility, not dissected for isolated lines, and that the dialogue in question, however provocative to some readers, did not meet the legal threshold of obscenity or defamation needed to justify banning a book under Article 19(2). The Court emphasised that courts should be extremely cautious before curbing artistic and literary expression, since banning books on subjective offence chills creativity generally. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will not ban a book or literary work merely because some readers find a passage offensive or distasteful; a restriction on free speech under Article 19(2) requires the content to pose a real, direct, and serious threat (such as genuine obscenity or defamation), not just hurt sentiment.