Ajit Karn
Rehana Fathima, a Kerala-based activist, was acquitted in a POCSO case on Monday, with the high court emphasizing that the right to autonomy over one’s body is frequently denied to those of the fairer sex, who are often bullied, discriminated against, isolated, and persecuted for making decisions about their bodies and lives.
In the year 2020, a video of Fathima went viral, depicting her partially naked with her minor children’s artwork on her body. She was subsequently apprehended, and her bail requests were repeatedly denied.
Who is Rehana Fathima?
1. In her appeal to the Kerala high court, Rehana Fathima argued that the body painting was intended as a political statement against society’s default view that the female upper body is sexualized in all contexts, while the male upper body is not sexualized by default.
2. Earlier, the woman was also charged by police in Pathanamthitta district under the Information Technology Act and the Juvenile Justice Act on a complaint lodged by BJP OBC Morcha leader AV Arun Prakash.
3. Fathima was also in the news after she had attempted to access the Lord Ayyappa shrine in Sabarimala after the Supreme Court allowed women of menstruating age to do so, and was targeted by certain groups for it.
This is not the first time Fathima has made headlines, however. In 2014, she had participated in the controversial ‘Kiss of love’ protest in Kochi against moral policing along with her companion Manoj K Sreedhar.
5. Earlier, she had attempted to challenge bastions of male dominance by participating in the annual Onam tiger dance (Pulikali) in Thrissur, a popular event that typically attracts all-male troupes.
Fathima was born into an orthodox Muslim family that compelled her to attend classes at a madrassa and perform the daily prayers five times. However, after her father’s death, Fathima reported that her understanding of religion shifted significantly.
What is the Kerala high court say?
1. In discharging Fathima, Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala high court stated on Monday that it was impossible to infer from the allegations against the 33-year-old activist that her children were used for real or simulated sexual acts and for sexual gratification.
The court stated that she only permitted her body to be used as a canvas by her offspring.
The judge stated that it was “harsh” to classify such a “innocent artistic expression” as a real or simulated sexual act involving a minor. “There is no evidence that the minors were used for pornographic purposes. The video contains no sexual overtones. The court ruled that painting on the bare upper body of a male or woman cannot be considered a sexually explicit act.
Also read this:WTC 2023: Aaron Finch reveals strategic reason that might benefit Australia
4. It further said that nude display of the upper body of males is never considered obscene or indecent and is not sexualised, but “a female body is not treated in the same way”.
5. The court added that some consider female nudity to be prohibited and only for erotic purposes, and Fathima’s intention in distributing the video was to “expose this double standard prevalent in society.” “Nudity should not be associated with sexuality. The mere site of a woman’s bare upper body should not automatically be considered sexual. So also, the depiction of the nude body of a woman cannot per se be termed to be obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit,” Justice Edappagath said.
