NEW DELHI: In an important judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against poetic licence stretching the right to freedom of expression to cast revered figures like Mahatma Gandhi as a character in a fictional work and attributing obscene words to him.A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P C Pant upheld the prosecution launched against Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar, editor of a magazine ‘Bulletin’ meant for private circulation among members of the All India Bank Association Union, for the poem ‘Gandhi Mala Bhetala’ (I met Gandhi). The poem, written by Vasant Dattatreya Gurjar, was published in the July-August 1994 issue of the magazine. However, it discharged the printer and publisher as they had tendered apologies.The judgment, authored by Justice Misra, dealt exhaustively with the issue of obscenity, referred to works of famous authors and poets across the world, extracted passages from 40-odd books on Mahatma Gandhi written by Indians and foreigners and tested poetic licence on the touchstone of ‘contemporary community standards’.The question before the court was “whether in a write-up or a poem, keeping in view the concept and conception of poetic licence and the liberty of perception and expression, using the name of a historically respected personality by way of allusion or symbol is permissible”?Using his educational background in literature, Justice Misra dug deep into the works of famous authors to convey what poetic licence was intended to serve and whether using historically revered figures as characters in a poem and attributing obscene words to them served that purpose.Tuljapurkar had claimed that he had used the obscene words, as if spoken by Mahatma Gandhi, to convey the angst in society. He faces prosecution under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, which is punishable by a maximum five-year jail term.Section 292 provides that “a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it”.The bench accepted submissions of amicus curiae Fali S Nariman, who said, “Words that had been used in various stanzas of the poem, if spoken in the voice of an ordinary man or by any other person, it may not come under the ambit and sweep of Section 292, but the moment there is established identity pertaining to Mahatma Gandhi, the character of the words change and they assume the position of obscenity.”The SC said, “Freedom of speech and expression has to be given a broad canvas, but it has to have inherent limitations which are permissible within the constitutional parameters.”An author’s fallacy in imagination could not be attributed to historically revered figures to diminish their value in the minds of people, the bench said. If an author used obscene words and attributed it to such personalities, then he travelled into the field of perversity, it added.“When the name of Mahatma Gandhi is alluded or used as a symbol, speaking or using obscene words, the concept of ‘degree’ comes in. To elaborate, the ‘contemporary community standards test’ becomes applicable with more vigour, in a greater degree and in an accentuated manner,” Justices Misra and Pant said while upholding the high court order for framing of charges against Tuljapurkar.