The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, highlighted the denial of autonomy over one’s body faced by women and the subsequent mistreatment they endure.
The court made these observations while granting discharge to Rehana Fathima, a prominent women’s rights activist who was charged under various sections of the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses), Juvenile Justice, and Information Technology Acts. Fathima had faced allegations for circulating a video wherein she posed semi-nude, allowing her minor children to paint on her body.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, in delivering the verdict, emphasized that the allegations against the 33-year-old activist did not suggest any involvement of her children in real or simulated sexual acts, let alone for sexual gratification. The court clarified that Fathima merely consented to her body being used as a canvas for her children’s artwork.
The ruling shed light on the gender-based discrimination, bullying, isolation, and persecution often experienced by women when making choices about their bodies and lives. It underscored the importance of recognizing and upholding women’s autonomy over their own bodies, countering the prevailing societal biases.
By exonerating Rehana Fathima, the court aimed to address the fundamental issue of preserving a woman’s right to make decisions about her body while emphasizing the absence of any illicit intent or harm in the act in question.
“The fundamental right to equality and privacy encompasses a woman’s ability to make autonomous decisions regarding her body. This right is firmly rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty,” emphasized the court in its ruling. The decision was made in response to Rehana Fathima’s appeal against a trial court’s dismissal of her plea for discharge from the case.
In her appeal to the high court, Fathima asserted that the body painting act was intended as a political statement challenging society’s default sexualization of the female upper body in all contexts, while the naked male upper body is not subjected to the same treatment.
Justice Edappagath concurred with Fathima’s arguments, stating that the act of painting on a mother’s upper body by her own children as an artistic project could not be construed as a real or simulated sexual act, nor was it performed with sexual gratification or intent. The judge deemed it “harsh” to label such an “innocent artistic expression” as the utilization of a child in a real or simulated sexual act.
The court stated that there was no evidence to suggest that the children were being used for pornography and no hint of sexuality in the video. Painting on the naked upper body of an individual, regardless of gender, does not qualify as a sexually explicit act, the court affirmed. The prosecution argued that Fathima had exposed her upper body in the video, thereby rendering it obscene and indecent. However, the court dismissed this contention, asserting that “nudity and obscenity are not always synonymous.” Furthermore, the court emphasized that it was incorrect to classify nudity as inherently obscene, indecent, or immoral.
The court drew attention to the historical struggles of lower-caste women in Kerala who fought for the right to cover their breasts. It also highlighted the existence of murals, statues, and artwork depicting deities in a semi-nude state in ancient temples and public spaces throughout the country, which are revered as “sacred.” The court observed that the male upper body is never deemed obscene, indecent, or sexualized, whereas the same treatment is not extended to the female body.
“Every individual has the right to autonomy over their own body, irrespective of gender. However, we often witness this right being diluted or denied to women,” stated the court. It further emphasized that women are subjected to bullying, discrimination, isolation, and prosecution for making choices regarding their bodies and lives.
The court also acknowledged that some people consider female nudity as taboo, associating it solely with erotic purposes. The intention behind Fathima’s circulated video was to expose this prevailing double standard in society, the court noted.
Who’s Rehana Fathima ?
For breaking news and live news updates, like us on Facebook fb.com/thevoiceofsikkim or follow us on Twitter twitter.com/thevoicesikkim and Instagram instagram.com/thevoiceofsikkim. Visit www.voiceofsikkim.com.
