Kerala High Court quashes case against woman, says nudity is not always obscenity
The 2020 case stemmed from a video, which the activist posted on social media platforms, showing her two minor children painting on her semi-nude torso.
3 min read
The court pointed out that women of lower castes in Kerala had once fought for the right to cover their breasts and that there were murals, statues and art of deities in the semi-nude in ancient temples and various public spaces all over the country and these are considered as "holy". (File) The Kerala High Court on Monday said that mere sight of the naked upper body of the woman should not be deemed to be sexual by default and the depiction of the naked body of a woman cannot per se be termed to be obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit.
The bench of Justice Dr Kauser Edappagath made the observation while quashing the case against a 33-year-old woman rights activist, who had faced a case under the POCSO Act on charges of allowing her two minor children to paint on her semi-nude upper part of the body. “Society’s morality and some people’s sentiments cannot be the reason for instituting a crime and prosecuting a person. An action is permissible if it does not violate any of the laws of the land. The notions of social morality are inherently subjective. Morality and criminality are not coextensive. What is considered as morally wrong is not necessarily legally wrong,’’ said the judge.
The 2020 case stemmed from a video, which the activist posted on social media platforms, showing her two minor children painting on her semi-nude torso. It had triggered massive outrage, leading to police in Kochi registering a case against her. The police chargesheeted her under various sections of POCSO Act, IT Act and Juvenile Justice Act. The woman moved the high court, challenging the dismissal of her discharge petition by POCSO Court in Ernakulam.
Discharging the woman of all charges, the judge said “the final report does not support or even draw a prima facie case for any of the statutory offences as alleged. The trial court overlooked the context in which the video was published and the message it had given to the public at large. There is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner.’’
The woman, who had hit headlines in 2018 after attempting to visit Sabarimala hill shrine, justified that her actions were a form of self-expression and an attempt to break free from social and cultural taboos that constrain women’s bodies.
“The male body is displayed in the form of six-pack abs, biceps etc. We often find men walking around without wearing shirts. But these acts are never considered to be obscene or indecent. When the half-nude body of a man is conceived as normal and not sexualised, a female body is not treated in the same way…the intention of the petitioner in making and uploading the video was to expose this double standard prevailing in society,’’ said the court.
You May Like
Photos
