Further delving into the matter, the Court went on to assert that those who perceive women's bodies as intrinsically obscene often do so because they have been conditioned to view women primarily as objects of desire. This perceptive observation highlights the underlying societal factors that contribute to the objectification and sexualization of women's bodies, shedding light on the need for a more equitable and respectful approach to how women are perceived and treated.

"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. Some people are so used to considering a woman’s naked body as an overly sexualised one or just an object of desire. There is another dimensional view about female nudity- that is, female nudity is taboo because a naked female body is only meant for erotic purposes."

In addition, the Court astutely noted that a similar disparity is evident in the realm of bodily autonomy, wherein the rights of individuals to exercise control over their own bodies are frequently diminished, particularly for women, within patriarchal societies. This observation highlights the systemic challenges and gender inequalities that persist, wherein women's agency and autonomy over their own bodies are often undermined or disregarded. By recognizing this discrepancy, the Court underscores the need for a more inclusive and egalitarian approach that upholds and protects the fundamental rights and autonomy of all individuals, regardless of gender.

"Body autonomy that allows individuals the freedom to make their own choice about their bodies is a natural right and part of their liberty. Every individual is entitled to the autonomy of his/her body – this is not selective on gender. But we often find this right is diluted or denied to the fairer sex. The autonomy of the male body is seldom questioned, while the body agency and autonomy of women are under constant threat in a patriarchal structure. The women are bullied, discriminated against, isolated, and prosecuted for making choices about their bodies and lives."

Regarding the issue of morality that often arises in discussions surrounding nudity, the Court made a noteworthy observation, emphasizing that morality is subjective and distinct from matters of legality. This observation highlights the inherent distinction between personal beliefs or moral judgments and the legal framework that governs society. By acknowledging this distinction, the Court highlights the importance of considering the legal aspects separately from subjective moral perspectives when addressing matters related to nudity or any other societal issue.

"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", the Court said.

In support of its assertion, the Court cited significant precedents to illustrate the distinction between morality and legality. Specifically, it referred to the Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Joseph Shine v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. These landmark cases resulted in the decriminalization of adultery and consensual homosexual sex, respectively. By highlighting these examples, the Court emphasizes that societal perceptions of morality should not dictate the legality of certain acts. It underscores the importance of the legal system in upholding individual rights and ensuring equality, even if these actions may have been previously regarded as morally objectionable by some segments of society.

"Adultery, consensual same-sex relations and live-in relationships can continue to be scrutinised on a moral ground by certain people as much as one wants, but they are legal because law and morality are not equivalent to each other. 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 Court observed.

In a significant judgment, the Court rendered its observations while dismissing a case filed against a women's rights activist under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The case stemmed from a video that the activist had shared on her social media platforms, wherein her two minor children, a 14-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl, were seen painting on her partially unclothed torso. Upon reviewing the video during the court proceedings, the Court discerned that it was not an act of sexual gratification or driven by any sexual intent. Instead, the video conveyed a powerful message against the objectification of female bodies.

Crucially, the Court took note of the detailed message accompanying the video, in which the petitioner expounded on her perspective. According to her statement, the display of nudity was intended as a response to a society that seeks to control and repress, particularly in matters of sexuality. She argued that a child who grows up witnessing their mother's nudity and body would not harbor a propensity to exploit or abuse another female body.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the video in question could not be characterized as a real or simulated sexual act, nor could it be deemed as having been created for the purpose of sexual gratification or with any sexual intent. Consequently, the Court quashed the case against the activist, recognizing the underlying message and intention behind the video.

This judgment highlights the Court's recognition of the broader societal issues surrounding the objectification and control of female bodies. It underscores the need to differentiate between acts that may involve nudity but lack any sexual connotations, emphasizing that such acts should not be subjected to unwarranted legal action. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding and appreciating the context and intent behind an individual's actions, especially when assessing cases related to expressions of personal beliefs and challenges against societal norms.

The petitioner, in this case, was represented by Advocate Renjith B Marar, who skillfully presented the arguments and advocated on behalf of the women's rights activist. With expertise and legal acumen, Advocate Marar effectively conveyed the petitioner's perspective, emphasizing the crucial aspects of the case.

On the other side, Senior Public Prosecutor TV Neema appeared on behalf of the State. As the representative of the prosecution, Senior Public Prosecutor Neema presented the State's position and arguments in response to the petitioner's claims. Their role was to ensure that the State's interests and legal considerations were duly represented and protected during the proceedings.

Both legal professionals played pivotal roles in presenting their respective cases before the Court, contributing to the fair and thorough examination of the matter at hand. Their participation ensured a balanced and comprehensive consideration of the legal issues involved in the case.

[Read Judgment]

References:

Barandbench.com