HC Bold Verdict - Women Breasts should not be considered S*Xual
The kerala High court ruled on monday that portraying a woman's nude body should not immediately be regarded as obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit. It further held that the sheer sight of a woman's bare upper body should not automatically be considered sexual. The POCSO Act was invoked in the instance of a 33-year-old women's rights worker who was accused of allowing her two young children to paint on her semi-naked upper torso. The woman had shared a video of this behavior on social media, which sparked widespread indignation and resulted in the kochi police registering a complaint against her.
The top court overturned the case against her, stating that societal morality and personal feelings cannot serve as the foundation for criminal accusations. The judge ruled that as long as a behavior did not break any laws, it is acceptable. Morality and crime are not always synonymous, since what is ethically bad is not always equivalent to being unlawful. The court recognized the presence of a double standard in which the female body is sexualized in a particular way whereas the male body is frequently presented without shirts or with powerful physiques.
Overall, the court's decision stressed the need of making a distinction between nudity as a sexual act and nudity as a means of self-expression or a critique of social standards. It emphasised the arbitrary character of social morality and emphasised that rather than being judged only on moral grounds, deeds should be assessed to see if they break the law.
The top court overturned the case against her, stating that societal morality and personal feelings cannot serve as the foundation for criminal accusations. The judge ruled that as long as a behavior did not break any laws, it is acceptable. Morality and crime are not always synonymous, since what is ethically bad is not always equivalent to being unlawful. The court recognized the presence of a double standard in which the female body is sexualized in a particular way whereas the male body is frequently presented without shirts or with powerful physiques.
Overall, the court's decision stressed the need of making a distinction between nudity as a sexual act and nudity as a means of self-expression or a critique of social standards. It emphasised the arbitrary character of social morality and emphasised that rather than being judged only on moral grounds, deeds should be assessed to see if they break the law.