Maligning a woman's character without substance is a form of social violence: Kerala HC

KOchi, The Kerala heights margaret court has observed that maligning the type of a adult female without any substance is a "pernicious take shape of social violence".It also observed that when a society focuses more on a woman's image than her achievements, "it exposes its own intellectual poverty".The observations by Justice C S Dias came while quashing the FIR registered against Malayalam film actor Shwetha Menon for allegedly publishing or transmitting obscene scenes of some of her past movies and advertisements.The High Court said that it finds force in the actor's claim that the complaint was filed with the sole intention of stalling her from contesting for the post of President in the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists, that too on the eve of withdrawal of nominations."The timing of the filing of the complaint strongly indicates its mala fide and vexatious nature," it said while allowing her plea seeking quashing of the FIR.The court also held that on an analysis of the complaint, FIR, materials on the records and the relevant laws, the offences alleged against her were not made out and the allegations were made with the ulterior motive of tarnishing Menon's name and reputation."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 said in its March 11 order.It further said that progressive societies evaluate people on the basis of their actions and contributions, while regressive ones resort to slander, character assassination and moral policing."When a society focuses more on a woman's image than her achievements, it exposes its own intellectual poverty," the court said.It also said that the empowerment of women does not mean that they should be made saints.The court said that it means recognising their individuality, aspirations and accomplishments with dignity and fairness."The society that tolerates the vilification of a woman out of envy or malice is nothing but an embodiment of injustice," the High Court said.The High Court had, in August last year, stayed proceedings in connection with the FIR, saying there was prima facie substance in the actor's contention that before referring the complaint for investigation, the requirements of calling for a report from the police and of making an enquiry ought to have been complied with.An FIR under section 67 of the Information Technology Act and provisions of the Immoral Traffic Act had been lodged against the actor.The court held that the "sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations, devoid of any material or prima facie proof" in the complaint were insufficient to attract the offences she was accused of.Menon was in the fray for the president's post in the Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes when the FIR was lodged.She was later elected as the president of AMMA.In her plea, the actor had claimed that the allegations are "mala fide" in nature and the offences she has been booked for are not made out.She had also contended that the complaint was filed in the wake of her filing nomination for the post of AMMA president.The complainant, Martin Menachery, had alleged that "by appearing in a condom advertisement years before and by acting in films like 'Paleri Manikkyam', 'Rathinirvedham' and 'Kalimannu', the accused allegedly appeared in a vulgar and obscene manner".Menon had contended that the films referred to in the complaint were duly censored and certified and have been available in the public domain for several years now.She had also said that the character portrayed by her in the movie 'Paleri Manikyam' bagged her a Kerala State Award for best actress.Even the advertisement, in which she appeared years ago, was duly censored and certified, the plea had said."The allegation of the petitioner being privy to running porn sites is absurd and per se defamatory," it had contended.This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.