Free One Liner Notes · Indecent Representation of Women Act One Liner Notes
Indecent Representation of Women Act One Liner Notes
22 min read
Download Indecent Representation of Women Act One Liner Notes PDF
Also Explore:\\
Indecent Representation of Women Act MCQs
THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMAN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986 | |
| What is the short title of the Act that prohibits the indecent representation of women? | The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 |
| What functions does the short title of an Act serves? | To provide an easy reference name of the statute |
| What is the aim of the preamble of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986? | Prohibit the indecent representation of women through advertisements, publications, writings, paintings, figures, or in any other manner. |
| What is the Act no. of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act? | ACT NO. 60 OF 1986 |
| In which official document is the commencement date of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 required to be published? | Official Gazette |
| Which form of media is not explicitly mentioned in the preamble of the Act but is covered through interpretation and application? | courts have extended the scope to digital and online platforms, interpreting "any other manner" broadly. |
| What Section 1 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 states? | Short title, extent and commencement |
| The Act known as the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act was enacted in which year? | 1986 |
| After the amendment of 2019, the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act extends to? | whole of India |
| As per Section 1(2), originally the Act did not extend to which region? | Jammu and Kashmir |
| The Act came into force on? | 2nd October 1987 |
| The phrase “except the State of Jammu and Kashmir” became redundant due to? | Article 370 abrogation in 2019 |
| Which provision deal with “Definitions”? | Sec 2 |
| What provision defines the term “advertisement"? | Sec 2(a) |
| Under Section 2(a) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, the term "advertisement" includes? | Visible representations through light, sound, smoke, or gas |
| In which case did the Delhi High Court hold that even hoardings and posters with sexually suggestive images may amount to "advertisement" under Section 2(a)? | Ajay Goswami v. Union of India |
| Which best illustrates an “advertisement” under Section 2(a)? | A billboard showing a woman in suggestive posture |
What are the examples which do not considered as an “advertisement” under Section 2(a)? | A tweet sent privately to a friend A book on gender studies A painting in a private residence |
| The expression "visible representation made by means of light, sound, smoke or gas" in Section 2(a) suggests inclusion of which medium? | Audio-visual advertisements in cinema halls |
| The inclusion of "light, sound, smoke or gas" in the definition of advertisement under Section 2(a) shows that the legislature intended to cover: | Both traditional and unconventional advertising mediums |
| Which provision deal with the term “distribution”? | Sec 2(b) |
| What best defines “distribution” under Section 2(b) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986? | Distribution by way of samples, advertisement, or in any other manner |
| In which case did the Delhi High Court observe that “distribution” of indecent representation includes online circulation through social media platforms? | Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India, (2013) |
Under Section 2(b), the word “distribution” can be interpreted to include which acts? | Emailing indecent image Posting indecent posters on public walls Sharing indecent content via apps |
Distribution” under Section 2(b) includes which methods? | Physically handing over indecent magazines Offering free pamphlets with obscene imagery Using advertising banners with indecent female images |
| What is the purpose of including “samples” in the definition of “distribution” under Section 2(b)? | Widen the scope of the term to include promotional or trial-based indecent distribution |
In the context of Section 2(b), which mode of "distribution" would be punishable under the Act if it involves indecent representation of women? | Direct sale Public exhibition Internet transmission |
| Which provision defines the term “indecent representation of women”? | Sec 2(c ) |
| Under Section 2(c) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, which best defines “indecent representation of women”? | Any depiction of a woman in a manner that is indecent, derogatory, or likely to deprave public morality |
| The phrase “likely to deprave, corrupt or injure public morality or morals” in Section 2(c) primarily focuses on? | Protecting societal moral standards |
What are the criterions under Section 2(c) for determining “indecent representation of women”? | Depiction of a woman’s body or part in a derogatory way Representation that may injure public morality Depiction likely to corrupt or deprave |
| The term "indecent" in Section 2(c) is interpreted in light of? | Community standards test and constitutional values |
| Which examples may amount to "indecent representation of women" under Section 2(c)? | A magazine cover sexualizing a woman for commercial purposes |
| What is the legislative intent behind Section 2(c) of the Act? | Prevent the objectification and commodification of women |
| In the context of Section 2(c), which landmark judgment held that artistic freedom is not absolute and may be restricted for decency and morality? | Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1 |
| What correctly distinguishes "indecent representation" from "obscenity"? | Indecent representation is broader and includes derogatory depictions not necessarily obscene |
| Which provision deal with the term “label”? | Sec 2(d) |
| What does the term “label” include under Section 2(d) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986? | Any written, marked, stamped, printed, or graphic matter on a package |
Under Section 2(d), what would fall under the definition of “label”?
| Printed advertisement on a bottle Marked content directly on the wrapper of a product A sticker on a package with an image |
| What is the primary purpose of including "label" in Section 2(d)? | Include packaging in the ambit of indecent representation |
| Which statement is true regarding Section 2(d) of the Act? | Labels must be affixed or appear upon packages to fall under the Act |
| In which case might a "label" be held responsible for indecent representation under the Act? | A wrapper showing a woman in a sexually suggestive pose |
| Which case upheld that packaging materials and labels must conform to decency standards under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act? | Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 143 |
| Suppose a cosmetic company distributes a soap bar with a wrapper showing a semi-nude model in a provocative pose. Under the Indecent Representation of Women Act, this would likely be an issue under? | Section 2(d) – Label |
What are the key elements in defining a "label" under Section 2(d)?
| It must appear upon a package It can be printed or graphic matter It must be written, stamped, or marked |
| Which provision deal with the term “package”? | Sec 2(e ) |
| What does the term “package” include under Section 2(e) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986? | Box, carton, tin or other container |
| Under Section 2(e), which is not expressly mentioned in the definition of “package”? | Envelope |
| What is the primary reason for defining “package” in the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986? | restrict the use of packaging as a means to spread indecent representations of women. |
The expression “or other container” in Section 2(e) is an example of? | an inclusive definition, implying that besides box, carton, and tin, other similar containers are also covered. |
| If an item containing indecent representation of women is sold in a metal can, will it be covered under Section 2(e)? | Yes, tin includes metal cans |
| Suppose a toy is sold in a plastic container showing a woman in indecent posture. Can action be taken under the Act? | Yes, as the plastic container is a “package” |
| Which legal principle allows “package” to include items similar in nature to boxes, tins, and cartons? | Ejusdem generis |
| Which provision deal with the term ““prescribed”? | Sec 2(f) |
| Under Section 2(f) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, the term “prescribed” refers to? | Rules made under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 |
| Which authority is empowered to make “prescribed” rules under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986? | Central Government |
| In absence of rules under the Act, the term “prescribed” in Section 2(f)? | Cannot be enforced effectively |
| Which case law highlights the significance of “rules prescribed” under statutory provisions for enforcement? | State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714 |
| The term “prescribed” is a common legislative drafting term that usually indicates? | Delegation of rule-making power to the executive |
| The word “indecent” in the Act is interpreted in light of? | Contemporary social standards and judicial discretion |
| Which provision deal with “Prohibition of advertisements containing indecent representation of women”? | Sec 3 |
Under Section 3 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, which actions areprohibited?
| Publishing an advertisement with suggestive images of women Participating in the publication of indecent representation of women Exhibiting an advertisement with indecent portrayal of women |
| Which case law laid down that depiction of women must be judged from the standpoint of public decency and morality? | Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2014) (the SC ruled depiction of nudity should be seen through the lens of artistic value, public morality, and decency) |
| What is true regarding the scope of Section 3? | It applies to all forms of advertisements, including electronic and digital media |
| What is the primarily aim of Section 3 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986? | Protect women from derogatory, vulgar, or sexualised portrayal in ads |
Which entities may be held liable for violating Section 3?
| The ad designer The media agency publishing it The advertiser who pays for it |
| The test of “indecency” under Section 3 must be applied? | From the perspective of contemporary community standards |
What constitutes a violation of Section 3?
| An advertisement with nudity used for titillation A deodorant ad portraying women as sexual objects A lingerie ad with suggestive overtones and provocative poses |
| Who is prohibited under Section 3 from publishing or causing to be published any advertisement containing indecent representation of women? | Any person |
| The expression “causes to be published” under Section 3 includes: | Indirect or direct involvement in publication |
| Which case held that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions including decency and morality? | Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal |
| Section 3 makes the indecent representation of women in advertisements? | A punishable offence |
Which mediums would fall under the scope of Section 3?
| Newspaper advertisements Posters Online banner ads |
| In which case the Supreme Court discussed about Censorship and safeguards for minors in media? | Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (2007) |
| Section 3 prohibits which kind of advertisement? | Advertisements with representation of women that is lascivious, appealing to prurient interest or corrupting public morals |
| The phrase "likely to deprave, corrupt or injure public morality" as used in context of Section 3 originates from which test? | Hicklin test |
What would likely constitute a violation of Section 3?
| Poster of a woman promoting alcohol using a sexualized image Billboard showing a woman in a provocative pose to sell perfume Internet advertisement depicting women as sexual commodities |
| Under Section 3, an offence is committed when the advertisement? | Contains indecent representation regardless of intent |
| In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Court emphasized that: | Public morality cannot be used to restrict individual expression unless it causes tangible harm |
| An actor appearing in an indecent advertisement may be liable under Section 3 if? | They profited from the publication |
| In case of a corporate advertisement, liability under Section 3 may extend to? | Every person responsible for its publication, including directors |
| Which provision deal with “Prohibition of publication or sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc., containing indecent representation of women”? | Sec 4 |
| Which act is prohibited under Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986? | Sending a novel by post which contains vulgar depictions of women |
| What all are prohibits under Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986? | Publication or sending by post any book, pamphlet, paper, slide, film, writing or drawing containing indecent representation of women |
| Which modes are specifically prohibited under Section 4 if they contain indecent representation of women? | Book, pamphlet, paper, slide, film, writing, drawing or painting |
| Sending indecent representation of women by post is punishable under which section of the Act? | Section 4 |
| Which landmark case discussed the balance between artistic freedom and public decency while dealing with controversial content? | Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal |
| Under Section 4, the act of publishing or mailing indecent material is considered? | A criminal offence |
| The term “pamphlet” under Section 4 would include? | Any small booklet or printed matter meant for free circulation |
Which acts does fall within the prohibition under Section 4?
| Mailing a cartoon with sexually suggestive depictions of women Sending a magazine with lascivious depictions of women Distributing a hand-drawn sketch with indecent poses of women |
| Which acts does not fall within the prohibition under Section 4? | Sending a textbook on female anatomy for a medical course |
| What does the Court emphasized in Director General, Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan? | Artistic work should not violate decency and morality |
| What is the core intent behind Section 4 of the Act? | To restrict the circulation of content that objectifies or morally corrupts using women’s images |
| To whom Section 4 applies? | Individuals who distribute physical or visual material through print or post |
| What does the Supreme Court upheld in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra? | That obscenity must be judged by its potential to deprave and corrupt |
| What best reflects a violation of Section 4? | Mailing a comic book that sexually objectifies female characters |
What differentiates Section 4 from Section 3 of the same Act? | Section 4 targets distribution of indecent representation through books, slides, etc., not just advertisements |
| The test of obscenity applied under Section 4 is based on? | Whether the content tends to deprave or corrupt persons likely to read or view it |
| Which provision deal with “Powers to enter and search”? | Sec 5 |
| Who is empowered under Section 5 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, to enter and search any place suspected of violating the Act? | Any Gazetted Officer authorized by the State Government |
| Under Section 5, the power of entry and search must be exercised? | At all reasonable times |
| The authority to search under Section 5 must be? | Based on reasonable belief that the place contains contraband material |
| The power under Section 5 can be exercised with? | Such assistance as considered necessary by the officer |
| In the context of Section 5, which best describes the scope of the search operation? | Can include seizure and sealing of material |
| Which case law discussed the powers of entry and search under similar statutes regulating obscenity and representation? | Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1 |
| The powers under Section 5 of the Act are conferred by? | The State Government |
| Which principles must be followed while exercising powers under Section 5? | Due process and respect for privacy |
| If an officer conducts a search without proper authorization under Section 5, it is considered? | Illegal and void ab initio |
| What is the term “reasonable time” in Section 5 implies? | As per rules framed under the Act |
| Which rule of natural justice applies to powers exercised under Section 5? | Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) Nemo judex in causa sua (no one a judge in their own cause) |
| Under Section 5, if a person resists the search, the officer may? | Use reasonable force |
| Which legal provision governs the procedural aspects of search and seizure not specified in the IRWA? | Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and now BNSS |
| The power of entry and search under Section 5 can be exercised if the authorized officer has: | Reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed |
| Which legal safeguard must be complied with during a search under Section 5? | The officer must record reasons and prepare a seizure list |
Section 5 provides the power to search premises suspected of: | Being used for production, storage or exhibition of materials involving indecent representation of women |
| Seizure under Section 5 must follow procedures laid down in which section of CRPC? | section 94 of Criminal Procedure Code |
| To whom the term “authorized officer” under Section 5 refers to? | Any officer appointed by the Central Government or State Government by notification |
| What does the Supreme Court emphasized in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999)? | Powers to search must be exercised fairly and in accordance with CrPC |
| The power to enter and search under Section 5 can be exercised? | Where there is reasonable belief of an offence under this Act being committed |
| Which of the following must immediately follow a search conducted under Section 5? | Seizure and production of material before a Magistrate |
| Whether any Gazetted Officer entry into a private dwelling house without a warrant? | No
|
What can the Gazetted Officer seize under Section 5? | any advertisement or any book, pamphlet, paper, slide film, writing, drawing, painting, photograph, representation or figure |
| What will be the next step of officer where he seizes anything under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 5? | he shall, as soon as may be, inform the nearest Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof |
| What does the Supreme Court ruled in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974)? | Even if search is illegal, evidence obtained may still be admissible unless fundamental rights are violated |
| What is the purpose of Section 5? | Prevent the spread of material involving indecent representation of women through timely inspection |
| Under Section 5, an authorized officer can search and seize material from? | Any place where there is reason to believe such material is kept |
| Failure to comply with proper procedure during Section 5 search may result in? | Evidence being excluded or challenged in court |
| Which provision deal with “Penalty”? | Sec 6 |
| Under Section 6, what is the maximum punishment for a first conviction for contravening Section 3 or 4 of the Act? | Imprisonment up to 2 years and fine of ₹2,000 |
| Under Section 6, what is the minimum imprisonment term for a second or subsequent conviction? | Six months |
| Under Section 6, the imprisonment term for a second or subsequent conviction may extend up to? | extend to five years |
| Under Section 6, what is the minimum fine for a second or subsequent conviction? | ten thousand rupees |
| Under Section 6, the fine for a second or subsequent conviction may extend up to? | extend to one lakh rupees. |
| Which provisions must be violated to attract penalty under Section 6? | Section 3 and Section 4 |
| In the case of Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014), what principle was laid down with respect to “indecent representation”? | The test must be from the perspective of an average, reasonable man |
| Under Section 6, the enhanced punishment for repeat offenders serves the purpose of? | Deterrence |
| Which provision deal with “Offences by companies”? | Sec 7 |
| Under Section 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, which persons can be held liable when a company commits an offence under the Act? | “Every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company” liable. |
What are the valid defenses for a person held liable under Section 7 for an offence by a company?
| The person had no knowledge of the offence The offence was committed without the person's consent The person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence |
| In K. R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, what principle was reiterated in the context of company liability under similar statutory provisions? | Liability arises only when the person was in charge of and responsible for conduct of business |
| Under Section 7(2), which company officials can also be held liable if the offence was committed with their consent or connivance? | director, manager, secretary, or any other officer, if the offence was with their knowledge or consent. |
Which case emphasized that vicarious liability under penal statutes like Section 7 requires specific statutory provision? | S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2005) (the Supreme Court held that criminal liability of company officials must be based on statutory language.) |
| What does the term “company” include under Section 7 explanation (a) of the Act? | The explanation includes body corporate, firm or association of individuals. |
| What is the meaning of “director” in relation to a firm as per the explanation to Section 7? | Explanation (b) states that in case of a firm, “director” means a partner in the firm. |
| In the context of Section 7, what best defines “vicarious liability”? | A person is criminally liable for the act of anotheronly if provided by law |
In which scenarios is the company liable under Section 7 of the Act?
| A manager knowingly allows indecent advertising Director is aware and supports the campaign The offence is committed on behalf of the company with full board approval |
| Whether the sole proprietorship is considered a “company” under Section 7? | No |
| What does the Supreme Court observed in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015)? | Criminal liability cannot be fastened only on the basis of designation |
| What does the Supreme Court held that in SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2005)? | Specific averment is needed in the complaint about the role of the accused |
| Section 7 requires what for establishing individual liability in a company offence? | Proof that the person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business |
| What does the Supreme Court reiterated in K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora (2009)? | Knowledge and involvement must be shown to prosecute officers of a company |
| What is the intent of Section 7? | Prevent companies from avoiding liability by hiding behind their corporate identity |
| Section 7 applies to which types of companies? | All companies, firms, and associations of individuals |
| Which provision deal with “Offences to be cognizable and bailable”? | Sec 8 |
| What implies “Cognizable offence" under Section 8 of the Act? | Police can arrest without warrant and begin investigation without magistrate's permission |
| What best describes a bailable offence under Section 8? | Bail is a matter of right |
| What does the Supreme Court held in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)? | Arrest must be justified even in cognizable offences |
| What is trueabout the classification under Section 8? | All offences under the Act are cognizable and bailable |
| The term "cognizable offence" is defined under which provision of CrPC? | Section 2(c) |
| The term "cognizable offence" is defined under which provision of BNSS? | Section 2(g) |
| What does the Supreme Court ruled in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)? | Officers must avoid unnecessary arrest in cognizable and bailable cases unless justified |
| What best describes the rationale behind making offences under this Act "bailable"? | To strike a balance between deterrence and fair procedure |
| What does the declaration under Section 8 affects? | Manner of investigation, arrest, and grant of bail |
| Section 8 ensures that offences under the Act can be? | Investigated and prosecuted by police without prior sanction from Magistrate |
| What does the Supreme Court stressed in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007)? | Grant of bail should balance individual liberty and societal interest |
| What does the classification of offences as bailable under Section 8 means? | The accused has the statutory right to be released on bail |
| In Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. Union of India (2023), the High Court observed in context of similar statutory offences that? | Statutory classification must guide bail decisions |
| Which provision deal with “Protection of action taken in good faith”? | Sec 9 |
| The phrase “in good faith” under Section 9 is interpreted in the context of? | Bona fide intention without negligence |
| In which landmark case did the Supreme Court observe that “good faith” implies due care and attention and not mere absence of malice? | State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 |
| Which Judgment emphasized that “good faith” must be established by the person claiming immunity? | Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 |
| In the context of administrative law, the immunity under Section 9 resembles which doctrine? | Doctrine of sovereign immunity |
| Against what Section 9 aims to provide protection? | Civil and criminal liability for those acting in good faith |
| In Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International (2011), the Court discussed the necessity of? | The protection of officials acting in good faith in legal procedures |
| Under Section 9, the person acting in good faith must prove: | That no unlawful intent or motive was involved in the act |
| In Rajender Singh v. Union of India (1999), the Court highlighted the importance of? | Protecting government officials from legal action if acting in good faith under the Act |
| What does the Court affirmed In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2013)? | In good faith and as part of official duties under the Act |
| What does the term “good faith” under Section 9? | Acting without malice, fraud, or improper motive |
| In the case Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra (1994), the Court emphasized that? | All actions taken by authorities must be scrutinized for good faith |
| What will happen under Section 9, if a person acting in good faith faces legal action? | they are Protected from prosecution, as long as the action was part of official duties |
| Which provision deal with “Power to make rules”? | Sec 10 |
| Under Section 10, who is empowered to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act? | The Central Government |
| The rules under Section 10 are required to be laid before? | Both Houses of Parliament |
| The rules framed under Section 10 of the Act must be? | Laid before both Houses of Parliament for a total period of 30 days |
| What does the laying of rules before Parliament under Section 10 includes? | while it is in session |
What are the purposes for which the Central Government may make rules under Section 10(2)? | The manner of seizure Procedure for forfeiture Powers of search and entry |
| In which case did the court reiterate that rules framed under an Act must not go beyond the scope of the enabling provision (applicable to Section 10)? | State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) (The Supreme Court held that delegated legislation can be challenged if it is ultra vires the parent Act.) |
| What would be the nature of the rules made under Section 10? | Consistent with the objectives of the Act |
| In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the Supreme Court emphasized that? | Rules made must not exceed the scope of the enabling statute |
| The purpose of granting rule-making powers under Section 10 is to? | Ensure that the law is adapted and operationalized for practical implementation |
| Which is an essential requirement for the rules made under Section 10? | They must be published in a government gazette |
| In Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Court discussed the importance of? | Delegated rule-making authority being exercised within legislative intent |
| The rules under Section 10 could cover which aspects? | Administrative procedures for handling cases of indecent representation |
| In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Yadav (2008), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that? | Statutory rule-making powers must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the law |
| What will be the consequences if any rule under Section 10 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act? | Will be void and ineffective |
| What does the court held in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)? | Legislative powers delegated to the executive must adhere to the intent of the law |
What are the subjects for which rules could be made under Section 10 of the Act? | The procedure for investigation of offences Methods of adjudicating penalties Procedures for handling public complaints |
| What does the Supreme Court ruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)? | The power to make rules must be exercised within the constitutional framework and not in violation of fundamental rights |
Download Indecent Representation of Women Act One Liner Notes PDF