Point of law : Section 67 B of the IT Act was introduced with the object of prohibiting, publishing or transmitting material in electronic form depicting children in an obscene or indecent, or sexually explicit manner.

ORDER :

When you look into your mother’s eyes, you know that is the purest love you can find on this Earth.” — Mitch Albom.

‘My Body, My Choice’ – an iconic tagline coined by the pro-choice movement in the early ’70s to represent bodily autonomy and gender equality – continues to be an expression of the rights women deserve and is still consistently utilised by women right’s activists across the globe as a powerful retaliation to sexist societal ideas and archaic patriarchy. The body is the most fundamental space over which an individual shall have autonomy. Body autonomy that allows individuals the freedom to make their own choice about their bodies is a natural right and part of their liberty. Every individual is entitled to the autonomy of his/her body – this is not selective on gender. But we often find this right is diluted or denied to the fairer sex. The autonomy of the male body is seldom questioned, while the body agency and autonomy of women are under constant threat in a patriarchal structure. The women are bullied, discriminated against, isolated, and prosecuted for making choices about their bodies and lives. Here is a case where a mother who tried to challenge patriarchal stereotypes and spread a message that there needs to be nothing sexual or offensive about the naked female body by letting her kids be exposed to her semi-nude body was saddled with criminal prosecution alleging that she exploited her own children for sexual gratification. What started as a body art project for a mother with her kids with control of the narrative turned out to be a ‘criminal act’.

2. The petitioner, a 33-year-old women’s rights activist who made her mark in Kerala through her progressive stances, posted a video on her social media platforms showing her two minor children, a boy (aged 14) and a girl (aged 8), painting on her semi-nude torso carrying the hashtag ‘Body Art and Politics’. The video, uploaded on YouTube and shared through her personal Facebook account, has triggered massive outrage, with several people slamming her for subjecting her children to what they considered to be an obscene and vulgar act and then posting the same for the world to see. The petitioner, on her part, defended her actions as a form of self-expression and an attempt to break free from social and cultural taboos that constrain women’s bodies. The police registered a case against her, allegedly succumbing to the public outcry. After investigation, the final report was filed at the Additional Sessions Court (For the trial of cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Ernakulam (for short ‘the Court below’) for the offences punishable under Sections 10 r/w 9(n), 14 r/w 13(b) and 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”), Section 67B (a),(b),(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short “IT Act”), and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “JJ Act”).

3. The petitioner appeared at the Court below. She was released on bail. She filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against her. The Court below, upon consideration of the records of the case and after hearing the submission of the petitioner and the prosecution, formed the opinion that there were grounds for presuming that the petitioner had committed the offence and, accordingly, dismissed the application as per the order dated 31/05/2022. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

4. I have heard Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Renjith B. Marar, submitted that a close reading of the FIR, FIS, statement of the witnesses, and the documents on record would reveal that none of the offences alleged against the petitioner are made out. The