In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has ruled that privately watching pornographic content on a mobile phone without distributing or publicly exhibiting it does not constitute an offence of obscenity under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court quashed criminal proceedings against a man who had been arrested for watching explicit material on his phone in private.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan emphasized the importance of an individual's privacy, stating that one's choice to view such content privately cannot be interfered with by the law. He declared, "A court of law cannot declare that the same amounts to an offence for the simple reason that it is his private choice and interference with the same amounts to an intrusion of his privacy."

The judgment clarified that watching obscene photos or videos in one's private space is not a violation of Section 292 IPC. The law only applies if the accused attempts to circulate, distribute, or publicly exhibit such content.

While upholding personal privacy, Justice Kunhikrishnan also issued a caution to parents regarding children's access to mobile phones. He highlighted the ease with which explicit material can be accessed online and suggested that parents take responsibility for supervising their children's online activities. The court encouraged parents to engage their children with informative content and outdoor activities instead of excessive screen time.

The judge's statement urged parents to consider the quality of family time by preparing homemade meals and promoting outdoor play over ordering fast food and extensive mobile phone use.

The Kerala High Court's decision came in response to a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the accused seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 292 IPC.

In its preliminary remarks, the court emphasized that consensual sexual activity between adults in private is not an offence in India. It noted that the court need not recognize consensual sex or private viewing of pornography, as these matters fall within the domain of societal norms and legislative decisions.

The court also examined Section 292 of the IPC, which defines obscenity and found that to establish an offence of obscenity, evidence must prove that the accused engaged in activities such as selling, hiring, distributing, publicly exhibiting, or making obscene materials available for sale, hire, distribution, or public exhibition.

In light of these considerations, the Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused.

The accused was represented by advocates Bobby Rapheal.C and E.C. Poulose, while Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan represented the respondent.