The Kerala High Court said maligning a woman’s character without any basis amounts to a “pernicious form of social violence” that deeply harms dignity. It added that valuing a woman’s image over her accomplishments “exposes society’s intellectual poverty.”
The Kerala High Court has noted that maligning a woman’s character without any basis is a “pernicious form of social violence.”
It added that when a society values a woman’s image over her accomplishments, “it exposes its own intellectual poverty.”
Justice C. S. Dias made these remarks while quashing an FIR filed against Malayalam actor Shwetha Menon.
The complaint accused her of publishing or transmitting obscene scenes from some of her earlier films and advertisements.
ALSO READ: Calling a Woman ‘R***i’ Directly Attacks Her Dignity and Modesty: Delhi Court
The court accepted Menon’s contention that the complaint appeared timed to prevent her from contesting the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) presidential election filed just before the nomination withdrawal deadline.
The court allowed her petition to quash the FIR and said,
“The timing of the filing of the complaint strongly indicates its mala fide and vexatious nature,”
After reviewing the complaint, FIR, available materials and relevant laws, the court found the alleged offences were not made out and concluded the accusations were aimed at tarnishing Menon’s reputation.
The March 11 order observed,
“To malign the character of a woman without any foundation or substance is a pernicious form of social violence, for while it is easily uttered, the stigma it leaves behind is often indelible. It is often said that when a woman attains name, fame, and recognition in public life, attempts to defeat her on the basis of reasons, logic, or merit may turn difficult. Then, social shaming is the frequently deployed weapon,”
The court contrasted progressive and regressive responses to public figures: progressive societies judge people by their actions and contributions, while regressive ones resort to slander, character assassination and moral policing.
The court added,
“When a society focuses more on a woman’s image than her achievements, it exposes its own intellectual poverty,”
It also emphasized that women’s empowerment does not require them to be idealized saints, but rather to have their individuality, aspirations and achievements respected.
The judgment stated,
“The society that tolerates the vilification of a woman out of envy or malice is nothing but an embodiment of injustice,”
Previously, in August, the High Court had stayed proceedings related to the FIR, noting prima facie that procedural steps such as seeking a police report and conducting an enquiry should have preceded any referral for investigation.
The FIR had been lodged under section 67 of the Information Technology Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically) and provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
The court found the complaint’s allegations to be “sweeping and unsubstantiated,” lacking material or prima facie evidence to sustain the charged offences. Menon was a candidate for AMMA president when the FIR was filed and subsequently won the post.
In her petition, Menon argued the accusations were mala fide and baseless.
The complainant, Martin Menachery, claimed that Menon’s appearance in a condom advertisement years earlier and roles in films such as Paleri Manikkyam, Rathinirvedham and Kalimannu showed her in a vulgar and obscene manner.
Menon countered that those films and the advertisement had been properly certified by censors and had been publicly available for years; she also noted her role in Paleri Manikkyam had earned her the Kerala State Award for Best Actress.
She described allegations that she was involved with running pornographic websites as “absurd and per se defamatory.”