The strongly-worded judgment empathised with the artist fraternity, who are left to run from “pillar to post in an Information Age where our law does not adequately protect creative people.”

“India’s new Puritanism, practised by a largely ignorant crowd in the name of Indian spiritual purity, is threatening to throw the nation back into the Pre-Renaissance era,” observed Justice Kaul. “Criminal justice system should not be used as an easy recourse to ventilate against a creative act.”

“Today, each painting has a story to narrate. Art to every artist is a vehicle for personal expression. An aesthetic work of art has the vigour to connect to an individual sensually, emotionally, mentally and spiritually,” observed the court.

It was clear from published records and interviews, excerpts of which were produced before the court, of the painter that he had “no deliberate intention to manifestly insult ‘Bharat Mata,’” the judge said, adding: “In fact, he had consistently maintained that he actually celebrates nudity and considered it as the purest form of expression.”

“The test for judging a work of art should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and not that of a hyper-sensitive one,” distinguished the court. “Therefore looking at a piece of art from the painter’s perspective becomes very important, especially in the context of the nude.”

Art and artists were once patronised by kings and elite classes, the court explained from history. “Art and authority never had a difficult relationship, until recently...Our greatest problem today is fundamentalism, the triumph of the letter over the spirit.”

... contd.