Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma Volume 11: 15-31 March 2015 No. 5-6

(2015) 1 LAW Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [IND-SC] ISC-151
“Offensive:-
1. Unpleasant or disgusting, as to the senses
2. Causing anger or annoyance; insulting
3. For the purpose of attack rather than defence.
Menace:-
1. To threaten with violence, danger, etc.
2. A threat or the act of threatening
3. Something menacing; a source of danger
4. A nuisance
Annoy:-
1. To irritate or displease
2. To harass with repeated attacks
Annoyance
1. The feeling of being annoyed
2. The act of annoying.
Inconvenience
1. The state of quality of being inconvenient
2. Something inconvenient; a hindrance,
trouble, or difficulty
Danger:-
1. The state of being vulnerable to injury,
loss, or evil risk
2. A person or a thing that may cause injury
pain etc.
Obstruct:-
1. To block (a road, a passageway, etc.) with
an obstacle
2. To make (progress or activity) difficult.
3. To impede or block a clear view of.
Obstruction:- a person or a thing that obstructs.
Insult:-
1. To treat, mention, or speak to rudely;
offend; affront
2. To assault; attack
3. An offensive or contemptuous remark or
action; affront; slight
4. A person or thing producing the effect of
an affront = some television is an insult to
intelligence
5. An injury or trauma.”
52. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held
in a series of judgments that where no reasonable
standards are laid down to define guilt in a Section
which creates an offence, and where no clear guidance is
given to either law abiding citizens or to authorities and
courts, a Section which creates an offence and which is
vague must be struck down as being arbitrary and
unreasonable. Thus, in Musser v. Utah, 92 L. Ed.
562, a Utah statute which outlawed conspiracy to
commit acts injurious to public morals was struck
down.
(emphasis ours)
53. In Winters v. People of State of New York, 92 L.
Ed. 840, a New York Penal Law read as follows:-
“1141. Obscene prints and articles
1. A person……who,
2. Prints, utters, publishes, sells, lends, gives
away, distributes or shows, or has in his
possession with intent to sell, lend, give
away, distribute or show, or otherwise
offers for sale, loan, gift or distribution,
any book, pamphlet, magazine, newspaper
or other printed paper devoted to the
publication, and principally made up of
criminal news, police reports, or accounts
of criminal deeds, or pictures, or stories of
deeds of bloodshed, lust or crime;
……………………………………………
'Is guilty of a misdemeanor, …'.” (at page 846)
The court in striking down the said statute held:
“The impossibility of defining the precise line
between permissible uncertainty in statutes
caused by describing crimes by words well
understood through long use in the criminal law
– obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or
disgusting – and the unconstitutional vagueness
that leaves a person uncertain as to the kind of
prohibited conduct – massing stories to incite
crime – has resulted in three arguments of this
case in this Court. The legislative bodies in
draftsmanship obviously have the same difficulty
as do the judicial in interpretation. Nevertheless
despite the difficulties, courts must do their best
to determine whether or not the vagueness is of
such a character 'that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning.' Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269
U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322.
The entire text of the statute or the subjects dealt
with may furnish an adequate standard. The
present case as to a vague statute abridging free
speech involves the circulation of only vulgar
magazines. The next may call for decision as to
65
Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015