In a recent judgment that has stirred discussions on privacy and obscenity, the Kerala High Court has made a significant ruling regarding the act of watching pornography in private. The court’s decision asserts that watching pornography in secrecy, without sharing or displaying it to others, should not be considered an offense under the law, as it falls within the realm of personal choice and privacy rights.
The case that led to this groundbreaking judgment involved a 33-year-old man who was apprehended by the police back in 2016 while watching explicit content on his mobile phone in a public place near the Aluva palace in Kochi. He was charged under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with obscenity-related offenses.
However, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan of the Kerala High Court dismissed the charges against the accused, emphasizing that such an act cannot be criminalized because it pertains to an individual’s private choices, and any interference with this personal space would constitute a breach of their right to privacy.
The defense argued that, even if the accusations were true, no crime had been committed because the individual was merely viewing the explicit material privately. This assertion aligns with the court’s judgment, which underscores the importance of distinguishing between private consumption of such content and its public dissemination.
Justice Kunhikrishnan stated, “The question to be decided in this case is whether a person watching a porn video in his private time without exhibiting it to others amounts to an offense? A court of law cannot declare that the same amounts to an offense for the simple reason that it is his private choice, and interference with the same amounts to an intrusion of his privacy.”
The ruling has broader implications beyond the specific case, shedding light on issues related to personal freedom, privacy, and the evolving landscape of obscenity laws in the digital age.
The judgment not only addressed the legal aspect but also delved into the societal context of pornography. Justice Kunhikrishnan acknowledged that pornography has existed for centuries but has become more accessible in the digital era, available at the fingertips of both children and adults.
Additionally, the court highlighted that consensual sex between adults, whether married or not, is not illegal in India as long as it occurs within the confines of privacy. This aspect of the judgment reaffirms the importance of personal autonomy and individual choices in matters of sexual behavior.
While emphasizing the accessibility of explicit content on mobile phones, Justice Kunhikrishnan cautioned parents about the potential dangers of allowing unsupervised internet access to their children. The judge advocated for a balanced approach, suggesting that parents encourage their children to engage in physical activities, play sports, and enjoy homemade meals rather than relying on food delivery services. This holistic approach, he argued, is essential for nurturing a healthy young generation.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s judgment on watching pornography in private highlights the complexities of balancing individual freedoms and societal norms in the digital age. It underscores the significance of respecting personal choices while also acknowledging the responsibility of parents and society in guiding and safeguarding the well-being of younger generations.
