What was the central question in Radha Kishan v. State of UP?

Whether the allegedly obscene or defamatory part of a book could disturb public order, decency, or morality to justify restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Can courts ban books for harsh or unpleasant expressions?

No. Courts should not stifle creative writing. Unless the content amounts to clear obscenity or defamation against individuals or a community, a ban is not warranted.

How did the Court view anonymous or broad-brush allegations?

Broad, vague claims are not enough. The Court looks for specific, prima facie material that shows real harm to public order, decency, or morality.

What did the Court finally decide in this case?

The petition seeking a ban failed. The dialogue complained of was part of character portrayal, not obscene; defamation did not arise. Creative voices cannot be silenced.

What is the exam takeaway from this decision?

Article 19(1)(a) is the rule. Article 19(2) is a narrow exception. Book bans need strong reasons: real obscenity or defamation, not dislike or discomfort.

Radha Kishan v. State of UP

Supreme Court of India 1963 AIR 1963 SC 822 Free Speech 3-Judge Bench ~6 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published on 2 Nov 2025

Quick Summary

Core point: The Supreme Court refused to ban a book based on one contested dialogue. Speech under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be cut down unless the content clearly crosses the lines in Article 19(2)—public order, decency, morality, defamation, etc. Here, the lines were not crossed.

Issues

Was the cited passage so obscene or defamatory that it could disturb public order, decency, or morality and justify a restriction under Article 19(2)?

Rules

Book bans chill free flow of ideas. Courts avoid direct or indirect censorship unless content is truly obscene or defamatory toward persons or communities.
Dislike or discomfort is not a ground to silence creative work. Only the narrow heads in Article 19(2) permit limits on speech.

Facts — Timeline

Top

Timeline illustration for Radha Kishan v. State of UP

A petition under Article 32 sought a ban on a literary work serialised in a Malayalam weekly.

The story followed Vavachan, whose moustache symbolised defiance against upper-caste dominance.

One dialogue claimed women dressed for temple were “unconsciously proclaiming” sexual readiness—said to be obscene/defamatory.

Respondents included the magazine’s Chief Editor, Union of India, and State of Kerala.

Reliefs sought: seize issues, stop publication/circulation (print and online), and frame government guidelines to prevent such content.

Arguments

Petitioner

The dialogue is obscene and defamatory; it harms women’s dignity and public morality.
Circulation across India risks disorder; reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) is justified.
Government must issue preventive guidelines.

Respondents

The passage is part of character portrayal, not pornographic titillation.
No targeted defamation; the line does not meet legal tests of obscenity.
Banning would chill literature and violate free speech.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It embraced pragmatic realism and protected creative freedom. The dialogue complained of was a narrative device to build characters, not an attempt to arouse lust or insult women. It did not cross the legal threshold of obscenity or defamation. Dislike of style is not a ground to ban a book.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 19(1)(a) protects literary expression. Courts will intervene only when content clearly fits Article 19(2) grounds. Creative narratives that may shock, disturb, or offend are still protected unless they amount to real obscenity or actionable defamation.

Why It Matters

Speech-friendly baseline: Creative works get wide latitude.
Narrow exceptions: 19(2) is not a catch-all for dislike or offense.
Anti-censorship signal: Book bans need strict justification.

Key Takeaways

Courts resist bans that muzzle ideas or art.
Context matters—read the line in the whole story.
Obscenity/defamation requires clear legal tests, not moral panic.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “READ, not BAN” — Reasonable limits are narrow; Expression is wide; Art needs context; Defamation/obscenity must be clear.

Context: See the whole work, not a line in isolation.
Threshold: Check strict 19(2) grounds with legal tests.
Outcome: If thresholds not met → no ban.

IRAC

Issue	Does the contested dialogue justify restricting speech under Article 19(2)?
Rule	Book bans only for content that squarely fits 19(2) heads—obscenity, defamation, public order, decency, or morality.
Application	Dialogue served characterisation; not pornographic; no targeted defamation; no real risk to public order/decency.
Conclusion	Restriction not justified; petition dismissed.

Glossary

Article 19(1)(a): Right to freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2): Narrow grounds to limit speech (e.g., public order, decency, morality, defamation).
Obscenity: Material that appeals to prurient interest, offends standards, and lacks redeeming value—assessed contextually.