Wrong To Say Nudity As Essentially Obscene Or Immoral: Kerala High Court

On Monday, the Kerala High Court discharged a suit against a woman’s right activist Rehana Fathima who is facing several charges for uploading a video in 2020 of her son and daughter painting on her bare torso.

Autonomous decisions about body fundamental right

A single bench judge Justice K Edappagath said that painting on mother’s torso by her children as an art project “cannot be characterized as a real or simulated sexual act” and such action cannot be labelled as and act of using a child for sexual gratification. Fathima faced charges against POCSO Act and juvenile justice and information technology laws for uploading video on social media. Kerala court also mentioned that, “The right of a woman to make autonomous decisions about her body is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality and privacy. It also falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.”

Wrong to classify nudity as essentially obscene

Earlier Fathima’s appeal against the case was dismissed by a trial court. She explained the high court that naked torso of a woman is sexualised in all contexts whereas men can walk bare chested. Responding to this the court said, “It is wrong to classify nudity as essentially obscene and or even in descent and immoral.”

Notions of morality are inherently subjective

The High Court recognized that some people consider female nudity as taboo and think it is only for eroticism but the main intention behind uploading the video was to expose this double standard. It also mentioned that there are murals, statues of deities in ancient temples which are seminude and are considered holy. It further added that notions of morality are inherently subjective, defining that adultery, consensual same sex marriage and live in relationships are not considered moral by the society but are legal acts.

Also Read: The Aim Of My Life Is To Empower Women: Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan