Tamil actress Khushboo’s case before the Supreme Court has thrown up several important questions relating to the right to freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution, and laws on whether a person can be dragged to court merely for making bold comments on women’s sexual choices, virginity and live-in relations in a freewheeling democracy like India.
The case throws up the question on whether trial courts can take cognizance of any complaint against a person for expressing their views freely on issues, simply because they are not liked by a section of society.
The apex court comprising Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and Justices Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan, though they reserved their verdict, spoke their mind on a subject, hitherto, considered “taboo” in Indian society, and grilled the lawyers of the complainants on what crime they deemed she had committed and what provision of the law she had broken.
The result? The Judges in unison observed that as per the existing laws in the country “pre-marital sex and live-in relations are not a criminal offence.”
Khushboo’s lawyer, Pinky Anand argued that the actess had committed no offence by making a statement on an important issue relating to the sexual bias in the society under debate. “Indian society needs to be liberated from the thinking that a woman should be a virgin (at the time of marriage when there are no such standards fixed for men).”
The judges did not find “convincing,” the answer coming from the lawyers for the complainants, and observed that they were not “bothered” about what she had said and would only be concerned about the legal aspect of the entire controversy. They have to look into whether she had committed any offence under the law of the land, otherwise these had to be considered as her “personal” views on an issue under debate. In response to the complainants that comments by someone like Khushboo, given her popularity among the younger generation could lead to the inducement of young girls to shed their virginity before marriage and prompt them to indulge in pre-marital sex, the judges said they were not “impressed” with the arguments that a person could influence society.
The apex court said, that for the sake of argument even if their views were accepted, could they produce any evidence to show that after Khushboo had expressed her views on these issues, more girls had “eloped” or whether before her comments young men and women did not spend time together.
The top court said that speaking freely on these subjects offended people who did not believe in public debate on these matters, and said that it showed that their main purpose was only to “target” her.
- Indian Journalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment