In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has dismissed the charges against women’s rights activist Rehana Fathima in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses) case. The court emphatically stated that the depiction of a woman’s naked body should not automatically be considered sexual or obscene, highlighting the denial of autonomy over women’s bodies and the discrimination they face for making choices about their lives.
Rehana Fathima had faced multiple charges under the POCSO, Juvenile Justice, and Information Technology Acts for circulating a video in which she was seen posing semi-nude for her minor children, allowing them to paint on her body. However, Justice Kauser Edappagath, who presided over the case, noted that there was no evidence to suggest that Fathima’s children were used for any real or simulated sexual acts or for sexual gratification.
The court recognized that Fathima had merely allowed her body to be used as a canvas for her children’s artistic expression. It underscored that a woman’s right to make autonomous decisions about her body is a fundamental aspect of her right to equality, privacy, and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
By discharging Fathima from the case, the court challenged the prevailing societal perception that the naked female upper body is inherently sexualized, while the male upper body is not subjected to the same default sexualization. Fathima had argued that the body painting was intended as a political statement against this societal bias.
Justice Edappagath concurred with Fathima’s contentions, ruling that painting on the upper body of a mother by her own children as an art project should not be classified as a real or simulated sexual act. The court stressed that there was no hint of sexuality or pornography in the video. It further clarified that nudity and obscenity are not synonymous and that it is erroneous to label nudity as inherently obscene, indecent, or immoral.
The court drew attention to historical examples, such as women of lower castes in Kerala fighting for the right to cover their breasts, as well as the presence of semi-nude murals, statues, and art depicting deities in ancient temples and public spaces across India. These examples are revered as sacred, highlighting the inconsistent treatment of the female body.
The judgment emphasized that the display of a man’s upper body is never deemed obscene, indecent, or sexualized. However, the same leniency is not extended to the female body. By challenging these double standards, the court took a crucial step towards recognizing and affirming women’s autonomy over their bodies and their right to determine the context in which their bodies are portrayed.
The order has significant implications for women’s rights and the broader discourse on gender equality in India. It questions the societal norms and biases that have perpetuated the sexualization and objectification of women’s bodies, while also acknowledging the importance of artistic expression and the right to challenge societal perceptions.
The judgment serves as a reminder that women should be allowed to make choices regarding their bodies without fear of bullying, discrimination, isolation, or persecution. It signals a shift towards a more inclusive and progressive understanding of gender rights, setting a precedent for the protection of women’s autonomy and privacy in the country.
Overall, the Kerala High Court’s decision to discharge Rehana Fathima from the POCSO case highlights the urgent need to challenge deep-rooted biases and ensure that women’s rights, including their autonomy over their bodies, are respected and protected.