March 5, 2024

“Each particular person is entitled to the autonomy of his/her physique – this isn’t selective on gender. However we regularly discover this proper is diluted or denied to the fairer intercourse,” the court docket mentioned.

Kochi: The Kerala Excessive Court docket said on Monday that the fairer intercourse is continuously denied the fitting to autonomy over their our bodies and that they’re bullied, subjected to discrimination, remoted, and prosecuted for making choices about their our bodies and lives. The court docket was doing this whereas expelling a ladies’s rights advocate from a POCSO case.

A lady’s rights activist named Rehana Fathima was charged with violating a number of provisions of the POCSO, Juvenile Justice, and Info Know-how (IT) Acts after sharing a video through which she was seen standing semi-naked for her younger youngsters and letting them paint on her physique.

Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the 33-year-old activist from the case, stating that it was not possible for anybody to deduce from the costs in opposition to her that her youngsters had been used for any precise or simulated sexual actions, not to mention for the aim of sexual enjoyment.

In accordance with the court docket, she solely permitted her youngsters to make use of her physique as a canvas for his or her paintings. “A lady’s elementary proper to equality and privateness rests on her means to make autonomous choices about her physique. It additionally falls underneath the umbrella of liberty as secured by Article 21 of the Structure,” it added.

The choice was made in response to Fathima’s enchantment of a trial court docket ruling that had rejected her request to have the case dismissed. She had argued in her enchantment to the excessive court docket that the physique portray was meant as a political assertion in opposition to society’s prejudice {that a} lady’s bare higher physique is sexualized in all conditions however a person’s higher physique just isn’t topic to this prejudice.

In settlement together with her claims, Justice Edappagath said that portray a mom’s higher physique as a part of an artwork mission “can’t be outlined as an actual or simulated sexual act nor can or not it’s mentioned that the identical was performed for an ulterior motive of sexual satisfaction or with sexual intent”.

Justice Kauser Edippagath, Picture Supply: Stay Regulation

In accordance with the choose, it’s “harsh” to characterize such “harmless creative expression” as exploiting a baby in an actual or pretended sexual act. “There is no such thing as a proof to assist the declare that the kids had been utilized in pornography. The video doesn’t comprise any specific content material. The court docket dominated that portray on an individual’s naked higher physique can’t be thought-about a sexually specific conduct, whether or not the person is a male or a girl.

The prosecution claimed that the video was obscene and indecent as a result of Fathima uncovered her higher physique in it. The court docket rejected the argument by stating that “nudity and obscenity are usually not at all times equal.” It mentioned, “It’s inaccurate to categorize nudity as essentially obscene, a lot alone indecent or immoral.” 

The court docket emphasised that murals, statues, and artistic endeavors depicting deities in semi-nude in outdated temples and totally different public areas everywhere in the nation are deemed to be “holy” and that decrease caste ladies in Kerala previously fought for the fitting to cowl their breasts.

Moreover, the prosecution had argued that the video violated ethical requirements held by most of the people and would morally corrupt viewers. This argument was likewise rejected by the court docket, which famous that societal morality is actually subjective. “Criminality and morality don’t go hand in hand.” It was argued that not all morally unacceptable habits is illegitimate.