Is nudity obscene? This question has vexed lawmakers and courts alike all over the world. This week, the Kerala high court proffered an answer — not always, and definitely not linked to gender. In a case where an activist was booked for filming a video of her minor children painting on her naked upper body, the Kerala high court found that nudity and obscenity were not always synonymous, and the mere sight of a woman’s unclothed torso should not be deemed sexual by default. The order made two points. The first was highlighting the contrast between prevalent social attitudes to male and female bodies. The judge concluded that the presence of murals, statues, and deities displayed in the semi-nude in ancient temples prove there is nothing inherently obscene about the unclothed female form. The court also rejected the taboo around female nudity, pointing out that if half-naked bodies of men were deemed normal, so should women’s bodies.
The court’s expansive view of women’s rights must gladden the hearts of many women activists who have long argued that the question of autonomy must reside in women’s decisions about their body, not in patriarchal dogma. The court’s emphatic rejection of criminal charges levelled against the activist will also hopefully temper the prosecutorial zeal of the police, which is often all too happy to file cases under social pressure. But questions linger about parenting. No matter the cause, asking your minor children to paint on your torso and filming them is provocative, and a pretty loose example of good parenting. Should that invite a jail term? Absolutely not. But was it worth it to make the same point that could have been made in other ways? Also no.
