The Supreme Court Friday dismissed controversial activist Rehana Fathima’s plea seeking anticipatory bail in cases against her for allegedly circulating a video in which she was semi-nude, allowing her minor children to paint on her body, and said the court is a little baffled at the kind of case that has come up before it.
The top court further observed as to what kind of impression the children will get about the culture of this country through such videos.
“Why do you do all this? You might be activist but why do this? What kind of nonsense is this.. It is obscenity clearly. And you are spreading it. It will leave the society in a very bad taste,” Justice Mishra said.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan –representing the activist — argued that she had been charged with child pornography and not obscenity. “The children are fully clothed,” he said.
“What kind of case you have brought before us? I am a little baffled,” said Justice Mishra.
Noting that the act in question prima face fell within the ambit of child pornography, the top court dismissed her petition.
She had raised two issues — if female nudity per se constituted obscenity; and if children painting on their mother’s body could be termed as “sexual gratification” and “child abuse”.
The activist had moved the Supreme Court challenging the July 24 order of the Kerala High Court rejecting her anticipatory bail plea in a case registered against her under the POCSO Act and Information Technology Act for her controversial video involving her minor children aged 8 and 14 painting her semi-nude body.
The High Court held there was prima facie case made out against her.
She had uploaded a video titled “Body art and politics” on YouTube showing her children painting on her semi-nude body.
She submitted the video had not been taken down by the platform itself as there was no nudity in it and hence the prosecution claim of child pornography was unfounded.
But the Kerala High Court didn’t buy her arguments.
If an imagery of this nature could be published on the internet for the purpose of sex education was a question that needed to be decided ultimately, the HC said.
However, it held that prima facie it was problematic and covered by the explanation to Section 13 of POCSO Act that dealt with acts involving a child for facilitation and distribution of pornographic material.
