'Bastard' Commonly Used In Heated Conversations, Does Not Amount To Obscenity: Supreme Court

Last Updated:April 08, 2026, 08:56 IST

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held that for an offence under Section 294 IPC to be made out, the words used must carry a sexual or prurient element.

Calling someone a “bastard" during a heated argument does not amount to obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court ruled, setting aside the conviction of two accused who had been found guilty by the Madras High Court for using the word during an altercation.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held that for an offence under Section 294 IPC to be made out, the words used must carry a sexual or prurient element. Mere abuse, the court said, is not sufficient.

“Mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person. More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations. We are, therefore, of the view that conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is hereby set aside," the bench said.

The case arose from a family property dispute over a common boundary. The altercation began when the deceased attempted to fence the land. The state had argued before the Supreme Court that the accused had abused the deceased using the word “bastard" and that Section 294(b) IPC was therefore attracted. The court rejected that contention.

The word “obscene" is not defined under the IPC, the bench noted. Referring to Section 292 IPC and its earlier ruling in Apoorva Arora v. State, the court reiterated that obscenity involves material that arouses sexual or lustful thoughts- not language that merely causes disgust, revulsion or shock. Vulgarity and profanity, it said, do not by themselves amount to obscenity.

The court accordingly held that Section 294(b) IPC was not attracted and set aside the conviction.

News india 'Bastard' Commonly Used In Heated Conversations, Does Not Amount To Obscenity: Supreme Court

Read More