Nude Lovers spring back, remind India of first ‘obscene’ art controversy

“Can a father do this to his daughter? Can a brother do this to his sister?” asked 26-year-old artist Akbar Padamsee defending himself in court after being slapped with Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code [then dealing with the exhibition of obscene objects]. “Only a lover can touch a woman like this. That’s why! And my painting is called ‘The Lovers’. This gesture is a universal gesture and that’s why I have used it,” added Padamsee, on being asked by Magistrate M Nasrullah, “How can you justify this gesture?”
It was June 16, 1954, and accomplished artist Akbar Padamsee had successfully defended a case where he was arrested for two of his paintings depicting a man’s hand resting on his beloved’s breast. The two paintings, ‘Lovers 1’ and ‘Lovers 2’, led to Independent India’s first major nude art controversy, that followed Padamsee’s arrest at his debut solo art exhibition in Bombay.
Cut to the present, 70 years later and four years after Padamsee’s passing, and things remain much the same.
The 1954 arrest and controversy involving one of India’s modern-art doyens, Akbar Padamsee, has returned to public consciousness because of a recent Bombay High Court ruling. This time, too, like then, his artworks were labelled as “obscene material”.
The Bombay High Court in October restrained the Customs Department from destroying some artworks by artists FN Souza and Akbar Padamsee, seized last year, on grounds of being “obscene material”.
The Customs seized seven paintings, calling them “nude drawings” and had ordered their destruction.
Observing that “sex and obscenity are not always synonymous”, the Bombay High Court held that in any event “every nude painting cannot be styled as obscene” and directed the customs department to immediately release seven confiscated “nude” artworks of famous artists FN Souza and Akbar Padamsee.
At his brother’s insistence, Padamsee had returned to India from France.
Padamsee was among several South Asian artists who moved to Paris in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Unlike others, he skipped formal art schools, choosing instead to focus on observing, learning about his craft and immersing himself in the local culture.
Though not a member of the pioneering Progressive Artists Group (PAG), Padamsee developed a bond with several of its key figures, including FN Souza, SH Raza, KH Ara, and HA Gade.

Eminent artists FN Souza (L), SH Raza (C) and Akbar Padamsee (L) in Paris in 1952. (Image: Public Domain/Wikimedia/Bhanumati Padamsee)

On April 29, 1954, Padamsee, the recipient of the prestigious French government scholarship Prix de Noel, made his debut with his solo show at Bombay’s Jehangir Art Gallery.
It was a landmark exhibition for the 26-year-old Padamsee, but it soon turned into a day of misfortune.
The exhibition, in Bombay, featured two paintings, ‘Lovers 1’ and ‘Lovers 2’, that he had come up with during his time in Paris, and were part of a series that explored human form and intimacy.
The two oil-on-canvas, which depicted a naked male figure touching the breast of a female figure, created an uproar. And the government of the (then) Bombay State, Chief Minister Morarji Desai, was quick to respond.
A police officer on the second day of the exhibition, offended by the “explicit content” of the paintings, asked Padamsee to take the “obscene works” off the display. Unfazed, Akbar Padamsee told him he wouldn’t. Soon, the Vigilance Branch of the police arrested Padamsee under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, reported The Times of India on May 2, 1954.
The two ‘Lovers’ were seized too.
Padamsee was taken to Bombay’s Azad Maidan Police Station where he spent two days in custody. Two days later, Akbar Padamsee was granted bail, but the challenge of clearing the charges still lay ahead.
The trial that followed at the Esplanade court in Bombay (now Mumbai) was a landmark event in the history of Indian art.
Padamsee’s case was defended by some eminent personalities of Bombay, including art connoisseur and lawyer Karl Khandalawala, and German cartoonist Rudolf von Leyden, who lived most of his life in the city fleeing the Nazi regime.
The trial itself became a platform for debating artistic freedom versus public morality.
“I don’t think that it was unusual for an artist of his stature to symbolise human love by the gesture of a male touching a female breast. This form of symbolising human love could be traced to the art of various countries, including India,” Rudolf von Leyden said in the court. Rudolf von Leyden was a mentor and guide to the Progressives Artists Group (PAG), according to art scholar Reema Desai Gehi’s book, The Catalyst: Rudolf Von Leyden and India’s Artistic Awakening.
The judge, M Nusrullah, presiding over the case, then posed a critical question to Padamsee. “How can you justify this gesture?” referring to the intimate depiction of the ‘Lovers’. Padamsee’s response was both poignant and insightful.
That’s when Padamsee argued, cross-questioning Nusrullah, “Can a father do this to his daughter? Can a brother do this to his sister?”
“Only a lover can touch a woman like this. That’s why! And my painting is called ‘The Lovers’,” Padamsee explained.
Padamsee arguments and parallels with classical Western art and Indian art, such as the erotic sculptures at Khajuraho, were accepted by the Court.
“As the accused put it in his statement before the Court, in depicting a subject such as ‘Lovers’, you cannot have a brotherly embrace… I fail to see how these pictures can come within the purview of section 292 of the Indian Penal Code [dealing with exhibition of obscene objects]… I must therefore acquit the accused,” noted a Bombay (now Mumbai) court Magistrate M Nasrullah on June 16, 1954.
“This was a seminal case for nudity in art, as it set the precedent for it to not be considered pornography,” noted art lawyer Teesta Bhandare in her Harper’s Bazaar India Piece.
However, the case did not end here. The Bombay state filed an appeal, which was dismissed. The ‘Lovers’ were handed over to Akbar Padamsee soon after. However, according to a piece on ArtNewsNViews, art historian Manisha Patil noted, “The show, despite garnering critical acclaim, left a bad taste in Padamsee’s mouth, prompting him to return to Paris.”
Although Padamsee’s case sparked a national debate about artistic freedom, the role of censorship, and the societal norms surrounding nudity in art, his artworks continue to attract government and bureaucratic muzzling. The seizure of Souza and Padamsee artworks and the court ruling 70 years after the first controversy show that the battle for artistic expression is far from over.