Right to speak

At first glance, this seems like a frivolous case about an off-the-cuff remark. But in the end it is about standing up for our constitutional rights. In 2005, Tamil actress Khushboo made a statement to a magazine to the effect that an educated man would not expect his wife to be a virgin.

Since then, she has been hounded by the Indian moral police, ever ready to protect “Indian culture” from all threats and especially from free speech and freedom of choice. The Supreme Court has now dismissed 22 criminal cases against the actress, pointing out that these were personal views which she was perfectly free to express under the Constitution.

Earlier, the Madras high court had consolidated all the cases so that they could be dealt with at one go. The number of cases against Khushboo — a staggering 22 — shows how little freedom of expression is understood and also how easy it is to use the courts to harass someone. Had Khushboo not been a celebrity, no one would have bothered. But it is important that celebrities use their fame to speak out on issues that society finds controversial or difficult to accept, so that we can cut down on prejudices and archaic ideas and traditions.

But it is constitutional rights which are paramount here and the actress’s victory is a blow for all those who find their fundamental rights being trampled on. The Supreme Court has once more been forced to make it clear that people are entitled to have a variety of opinions and they cannot be punished for that.

Khushboo has suffered for what is not just a personal opinion but also a fairly innocuous remark. In a vibrant society, we must have a variety of opinions and it almost seems incredible that this case had to go as far as the apex court.

The right to litigate is undoubtedly important and it allows people to seek some justice for their grievances. But this case raises several questions, starting with the fact that the actress had criminal cases slapped on her. The moral police felt that she was encouraging pre-marital sex, which the actress later denied, pointing out that her remarks were part of a larger discussion about HIV and Aids. But even setting that aside, exactly why she was condemned and harangued for five years is difficult to comprehend in this day and age.

This is not about a society in transition so much as about applying one’s own moral standards on other people, without any concern either for the law of the land or for rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution.