19 tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall. Great strides have been made since this decision in the U.K., the United States as well as in our country. Thus, in Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan11 this Court noticed the law in the United States and said that a material may be regarded as obscene if the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the subject-matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest and that taken as a whole it otherwise lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value (see para 31). 49. In a recent judgment of this Court, Aveek Sarkar v. State of W.B. 12, this Court referred to English, US and Canadian judgments and moved away from the Hicklin (supra) test and applied the contemporary community standards test. 50. What has been said with regard to public order and incitement to an offence equally applies here. Section 66-A cannot possibly be said to create an offence which falls within the expression “decency” or “morality” in that what may be grossly offensive or annoying under the section need not be obscene at all—in fact the word “obscene” is conspicuous by its absence in Section 66-A.” 22. In Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors13 analyzing the said judgment another 11 (2006) 8 SCC 433 12 (2014) 4 SCC 257 13 (2015) 6 SCC 1 Page 19