திருமணத்துக்கு முன் செக்ஸ் வைத்துக் கொள்வதில் தவறில்லை என்று சொன்ன செக்ஸ் எக்ஸ்ப்ர்ட் இப்பொழுது சொல்வது – 18 வயதில் இருந்தே அனைத்தும் துவங்க வேண்டும்!


திருமணத்துக்கு முன் செக்ஸ் வைத்துக் கொள்வதில் தவறில்லை என்று சொன்ன செக்ஸ் எக்ஸ்ப்ர்ட் இப்பொழுது சொல்வது – 18 வயதில் இருந்தே அனைத்தும் துவங்க வேண்டும்!

A girl participated in the anti-rape campaign Chennai - The Hindu photo

சென்னையில் கற்பழிப்பு எதிர்ப்புப் போராட்டத்தில் கலந்து கொண்ட ஒரு பெண்மணி – “இது கற்பழிப்பிற்காக அல்ல” என்பதனை மார்பிலும் வயிற்றிலும் பார்த்து படிக்க வேண்டுமாறு இருக்கமான டி-சர்ட் அணிந்து வந்ததாக “தி ஹிந்து” படத்தை வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.

  • இப்படி அம்மணிகள் தமிழகத்தில் உலா வரலாமா?
  • அடலேறும் மடலேறுகள் என்ன செய்வார்கள்?
  • இல்லை, அன்று “கண்ணில் ஆடும் மாங்கனி, கையில் ஆடுமோ” என்று தமிழ் கவிஞர் பாடியதை போல பாடி காட்டுவரோ,
  • பாடி கேட்பரோ,
  • இல்லை பறித்தே விடுவரோ?

செக்ஸ்-எக்ஸ்பர்ட் குஷ்பு சொல்வது: செக்ஸில் திறமைசாலியாகி பண்டிதையாகி வரும் குஷ்பு, பல நேரங்களில் பலவிதமான வெளிப்படையான, பரந்த, விசாலமான, ஆழ்ந்த கருத்துகளைச் சொல்லிவருகிறார். ஏனெனில், அவருக்கு அவ்வாறு கூற உரிமை உண்டு, கருத்து சுதந்திரம் உண்ரடு! பெண்ணியத்தின் மறு அவதாரமாக, இந்த பெண்மணி பல கருத்துக்களை சொல்லி வருகிறார்.

  • திருமணத்திற்கு முன்பாக செக்ஸ் வைத்துக் கொள்ளலாம் என்றேல்லாம் கூறியிருக்கிறார்.
  • இப்பொழுது, செக்ஸுக்கான வயதை 18ல் இருந்து 16க குறைப்பதால் கற்பழிப்பு குற்றங்கள் குறையும் என்று எப்படி நினைக்க முடியும்.
  • அது தவறானது. அது கற்பழிப்பு குற்றங்கள் குறைக்க வழி வகை செய்யாது. இந்தியாவில் வயது வித்தியாசம் இன்றி கற்பழிப்பு சம்பவங்கள் நடக்கின்றன. நாட்டில் எங்கோ உள்ள ஒரு மூலையில் 45 வயது பெண் கூட கற்பழிக்கப்படுகிறாள்[1].
  • வயதை கூட்டுவதாலோ, குறைப்பதாலோ எந்த வித்தியாசமும் ஏற்படாது.
  • ஒருவருக்கு வாக்களிக்கும் வயது 18க உள்ளது.
  • அதனால் அந்த வயதில் இருந்தே அனைத்தும் துவங்க வேண்டும் என்றார்[2].

இதுதான் அந்த அம்மாவின் “லாஜிக்”. ஓட்டுப்போடும் வயது வந்தால், எல்லாமே வந்து விடுமா?

Girls at Chennai pub

சென்னை பப்பில் பெண்கள் – என்று வெளியிடப்பட்டுள்ள புகைப்படம்.

இனி கற்பு பற்றி என் மனதுக்கு பட்டதை சுதந்திரமாக பேச முடியும்: 2010ல் தீர்ப்பு வந்த உடனே, “இனி கற்பு பற்றி என் மனதுக்கு பட்டதை சுதந்திரமாக பேசுவேன்”, என்று நடிகை குஷ்பு கூறியுள்ளார்[3]. கடந்த 2005ம் ஆண்டு நடிகை குஷ்பு வார இதழ் (இந்தியா டுடே செப்டம்பர் 2005) ஒன்றிற்கு அளித்த பேட்டியில், திருமணத்துக்கு முன் செக்ஸ் வைத்துக் கொள்வதில் தவறில்லை. அப்படி வைத்துக் கொள்ளும்போது கர்ப்பமாகாமலும், பால்வினை நோய்கள் பரவி விடாமலும் பெண் தன்னை பாதுகாத்துக் கொள்ள வேண்டும், என்று குறிப்பிட்டிருந்தார்[4]. குஷ்புவின் இந்த பேட்டி தமிழ் கலாச்சாரத்திற்கு விரோதமானது என எதிர்ப்பு கிளம்பியது. ஆனால், தமிழ் நடிகைகள் அரை நிர்வாணமாக நடிப்பதைப் பற்றி யாரும் எதிர்ப்புத் தெரிவிக்கவில்லை. ஸ்ரேயாவே, மேடையில் கருணாநிதிக்கு முன்பாக, அரை நிர்வாண ஆடையில் வந்ததில்லாமல், கால் மேல் கால் போட்டு உட்கார்ந்து, பெண்மையைத் தூக்கிப் பிடித்தார்.

Ethiral college girls - Film promotion fest

எதிராஜ் கல்லூரியில் வியாபார விளம்பர நிகழ்ச்சியில் கலந்து கொண்ட பெண்மணிகள்.

பொத்துக் கொண்டு வந்த தமிழர்கள் வழக்குப் போட்டார்கள்[5]: தமிழகம் முழுவதும் குஷ்புவுக்கு எதிராக வழக்குகள் தொடரப்பட்டன. அவற்றை ரத்து செய்யக்கோரி குஷ்பு தரப்பு சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டில் வழக்கு தொடர்ந்தது. இந்த வழக்கு சுப்ரீம்கோர்ட்டில் நடந்து வருகிறது. சமீபத்தில் இவ்வழக்கு விசாரணை முடிவில் கருத்து தெரிவித்த சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட், குஷ்பு பேசியதில் தவறே இல்லை. மேஜர் ஆன ஆணும் பெண்ணும் விருப்பம் இருந்தால் செக்ஸ் வைத்துக் கொள்ளலாம், என்று கூறியிருந்தது.

Even in the societal mainstream, there are a significant number of people who see nothing wrong in engaging in premarital sex. Notions of social morality are inherently subjective and the criminal law cannot be used as a means to unduly interfere with the domain of personal autonomy. Morality and Criminality are not co-extensive[6].

சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டின் இந்த கருத்துக்கும் கடும் எதிர்ப்பு கிளம்பியுள்ளது. இந்நிலையில் நீதிபதிகளின் இந்த கருத்து பற்றி நடிகை குஷ்பு பேட்டியளித்துள்ளார். அவர் அளித்துள்ள பேட்டியில், இனி கற்பு பற்றி என் மனதுக்கு பட்டதை சுதந்திரமாக பேச முடியும் என நினைக்கிறேன். நமது நாட்டில் பேச்சு சுதந்திரம் இன்னும் வலுவாக இருப்பதாகவே கருதுகிறேன். மேலும் நான் இந்த அளவுக்கு போராட காரணமே, எனது மகள்களுக்கு நான் மனஉறுதி கொண்டவள், அதற்காக நீங்கள் பெருமைப்பட வேண்டும் என்பதை காட்டுவதற்காகத்தான், என்று கூறியுள்ளார்.

According to me, sex is not only concerned with the body; but also concerned with the conscious. I could not understand matters such as changing boyfriends every week. When a girl is committed to her boyfriend, she can tell her parents and go out with him. When their daughter is having a serious relationship, the parents should allow the same. Our society should come out of the thinking that at the time of the marriage, the girls should be with virginity. None of the educated men, will expect that the girl whom they are marrying should be with virginity. But when having sexual relationship the girls should protect themselves from conceiving and getting venereal diseases[7].

மேஜர் ஆன ஆணும் பெண்ணும் விருப்பம் இருந்தால் செக்ஸ் வைத்துக் கொள்ளலாம்: குஷ்பு வழக்கில் பாலகிருஷ்ணன் (தீபக் வர்மா மற்றும் பி.எஸ். சௌஹான்) இப்படி தீர்ப்பு வழங்கினார்[8]. இப்படி சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் கருத்து தெரிவித்தபோது, ஆண்-பெண் எப்பொழுது மேஜர் ஆவர்கள், மேஜர் ஆகும் வயது என்ன என்று யாரும் விவாதிக்கவில்லை. ஆனால், இப்பொழுது, தில்லி-ரேப்பிற்குப் பிறகு, விவாதம் வந்திருக்கிறது. இருப்பினும் இதைப்பற்றி பேச்சில்லை. தீர்ப்பில் மின்னணு ஊடகத்தைக் கண்டித்தனரேயன்றி[9], நடிகைகள் ஆபாசமாக நடிப்பதைப் பற்றி ஒன்றும் கூறவில்லை.

Chennai college girls

இவர்களும் சென்னை கல்லூரி மாணவிகள் தாம் – பேற்றோர்கள் மனம்!

18 வயதில் இருந்தே அனைத்தும் துவங்க வேண்டும்: குஷ்பு இப்படி சொன்னால், அனைத்தும் எப்படி 18 வயதிலிருந்து துவங்கும், பல பெண்களுக்கு, சிறுமிகளுக்கு, 7 முதல் 13 வரையில் கூட வயது வந்து விடுகிறதே? அதற்கென்ன செய்வது? முன்பு கூட, திருமண வயது குறித்து விவாதம் வந்தது. 25, 20 என்றெல்லாம் சொல்லி பிறகு 18ஆக குறைக்கப்பட்டது. பிறகு “வயது வந்தவர்களுக்கு மட்டும்” என்று சினிமாக்கள் ஏன் எடுக்க வேண்டும்?

  • வசனங்களில், ஜோக்குகளில் அத்தகைய கட்டுப்பாடு இல்லையே?
  • பப்புகளில் பள்ளி-கல்லூரி மாணவிகள் உள்ளனரே?
  • மதுக்கடைகளில் அவர்களும் இருக்கின்றனரே?
  • பேருந்துகளில், மாணவர்களுக்குப் போட்டியாக, கலாட்டா செய்து கொண்டு போகிறார்களே?
  • சைட் அடிப்பதைப் பற்றி வெளிப்படையாக மாணவிகள் பட்டி மன்றம் என்ற போர்வையில் டிவிசெனல்களில் வந்து கத்துகிறார்களே?

The Leather Bar, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai

சென்னை நுங்கம்பாக்கத்தில் ஒரு பப்பில் எடுக்கப்பட்ட புகைப்படமாம்.

இந்திய விரோதிகளின் சதிகள்: அந்நிய சரக்கு (ஊசி முதல் எல்லாம் அடங்கும்) விற்கவேண்டும் என்பதற்காக, இந்திய சமூக நிறுவனங்கள் எப்படி மாற்றப்படுகின்றன, இந்திய நலன்களுக்கு எதிராக உபயோகப்படுத்தப் படுகின்றன என்பதை கவனிக்கலாம். அரசியல் முதல் சினிமா வரை, குடி முதல் கூத்தாடி வரை, குத்தாட்டம் முதல் கூத்தாட்டம் வரை இப்படி அனைத்திலும் மேனாட்டு சீரழிவுகளை அறிமுகப்படுத்திக் கொண்டு, வாழும் வாழ்க்கையினை இந்தியர்கள் என்றுதான் ஒதுக்குவார்களோ?
© வேதபிரகாஷ்

20-03-2013


[4] Subsequently, `Dhina Thanthi’, a Tamil daily carried a news item on 24.9.2005 which first quoted the appellant’s statement published in `India Today’ and then opined that, “…it had created a sensation all over the State of Tamil Nadu. This news item also reported a conversation between the appellant and a correspondent from `Dhina Thanthi’, wherein the appellant had purportedly defended her views in the following manner (rough translation reproduced below): "The persons who are protesting against my interview, are talking about which culture? Is there anyone who does not know about sex in Tamil Nadu? Is there anyone who does not know about AIDS? How many men and women do not have sex before marriage? Why are people saying that after the marriage the husband and wife should be honest and faithful to each other? One should have confidence in the other, only to avoid the mistakes from being committed. If the husband, without the knowledge of the wife, or the wife, without the knowledge of the husband, have sex with other persons, if a disease is caused through that, the same will affect both the persons. It will also affect the children. Only because of this, they are saying like that”. குஷ்பு (வாதி)– கன்னியம்மாள் மற்றும் இன்னொருவர் (பிரதிவாதி) – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327342/

[9] It is, therefore, not only desirable but imperative that electronic and news media should also play positive role in presenting to general public as to what actually transpires during the course of the hearing and it should not be published in such a manner so as to get unnecessary publicity for its own paper or news channel. Such a tendency, which is indeed growing fast, should be stopped. We are saying so as without knowing the reference in context of which the questions were put forth by us, were completely ignored and the same were misquoted which raised unnecessary hue and cry.

குறிச்சொற்கள்: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 பதில்கள் to “திருமணத்துக்கு முன் செக்ஸ் வைத்துக் கொள்வதில் தவறில்லை என்று சொன்ன செக்ஸ் எக்ஸ்ப்ர்ட் இப்பொழுது சொல்வது – 18 வயதில் இருந்தே அனைத்தும் துவங்க வேண்டும்!”

  1. vedaprakash Says:
    Madras High Court S.Khusboo vs Kanniammal on 30 April, 2008 Date:-30.04.2008 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/761199/ Coram:- The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. Nos. 31393, 31394, 31395, 31396, 32286, 32341, 32595, 32612, 32613, 32953, 33547, 33548, 29681, 30200, 34429, 9064, 9525, 9575, 9580, 9581, 10006 and 10101/05 & 1523/06 and Crl.M.P. Nos. 8838, 8840, 8842, 8844, 9115, 9130, 9181, 9198, 9200, 9301, 9502, 9504, 8501, 8631, 8632, 9849, 5891, 5892, 6193, 6194, 6215, 6216, 6218, 6219, 6222, 6223, 6507, 6508, 6565 of 2005 & 312 of 2006 – – – – – Crl.O.P. No.31393 of 2005 S.Khusboo … Petitioner vs. Kanniammal … Respondent Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records comprised in C.C. No.114 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingelpet and quash the same. For petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.32595 & 9525 of 2005 : Mr.Sunder Mohan In other Petitions : Mr.K.Asokan, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Karthikeyan & R.Bharnidharan. For respondents in Crl.O.P. Nos.1523/06 and 31394/2005 : Mr.K.Balu For respondent in Crl.O.P. No.30200/05: Mr.R.Ashraf Khan For respondents in Crl.O.P. Nos.31395 & 29681 of 2005 : Mr.Rupert J.Barnabas for Mr.K.Balu For respondents in Crl.O.P. Nos.32612 & 32953/05 : Mr.Ananthapadmanabhan for Mr.K.Balu. – – – – – COMMON ORDER Cries and clamors and voices of condemnation could be heard throughout the State of Tamil Nadu subsequent to the controversial comments of a famed cine celebrity made during her interviews to a famous Magazine and a popular Tamil Daily about premarital sex & Indian Society and Tamil culture and, as the feelings of the members of the commonalty had been outraged, the waves of reflex could swiftly cross even the boundaries of the State. The fuming aura due to sweeping protests and obstinate agitations got eased only when doors of the court were knocked at various districts of Tamil Nadu, of course in North India also at Indore, by filing private complaints against the actress and there derived a positivity that law would take its own course. The present batch of petitions have been preferred to quash the proceedings pending before various courts of Magistrates in the State on the ground that there was illegality on the part of the trial courts in taking cognizance of the offences alleged in the baseless private complaints and subsequently issuing summons against the petitioner. Actually, some of the petitions have been filed before this Court while others before the Madurai Bench and in order to have one touch and give a quietus, all the petitions have been clubbed together and posted before this court for hearing and disposal. 2. Though two of the petitions viz., 32595 and 9525 of 2005, have been preferred by the Magazine/India Today, since the issue involved is almost one and the same in all the petitions, they are disposed of by this Common Order. 3. First, it would be apropos to delve into the factual backdrop which ultimately led to filing of private complaints before various Subordinate Courts as against the actress as well as the Magazine. The petitioner, who is a popular cine actress and television game show host, was interviewed by India Today Magazine, which surveyed celebrities’ views on pre-marital sex and, in the news item appeared in the Tamil Publication of the said Magazine with cover-story titled ‘chastity getting obsolete’, her statement made during the interview appeared and from the contents, it is seen that the petitioner proceeded to state that it could be seen that the girls at Chennai are crossing the psychological barriers regarding sex as they come to be viewed at pubs and discotheques; that in the Indian Society stuffed with conservative taboos, unlike early days, women have now started to flap their wings; that sex education should be given at school level and if not, parents of the children should take efforts to teach them the basics of sex; that when a girl is serious about her relationship with a male friend, her parents should allow such relationship; that the community should be liberated from the perception that at the time of marriage, the bride should be with virginity; and that no educated male would expect that his helpmate would be with virginity, however, while indulging in pre-marital sex, one must be careful that it should not result in pregnancy and venereal diseases. Such polemical comments made by the petitioner received wide condemnation from several organizations alleging that by making such comments, she opened the floodgates of cultural degradation, whereupon, she was interviewed by a reporter of a Tamil Daily Dhina Thanthi regarding her earlier comments/statement made to India Today on premarital sex. Such interview to Dhiana Thanthi was published in its edition dated 24.09.2005. By raising a question that those who criticise her statement belong to which culture, she ventured to ask, is there anybody in Tamil Nadu who does not know about sex and aids and how many men and women are there who did not indulge in pre-marital sex. Subsequent to those comments, the already ignited sparks turned to robust flames and the same also left open to a fresh debate over the gap between public morality and private attitudes towards sex. Even the State had to direct the Director General of Police to draw up a strategy to prevent the protests growing violent. In such circumstances, some members of the public, most of whom are women, have chosen to approach the court on the ground that they were markedly offended by the objectionable and controversial remarks made against the Indian society in general and Tamil Culture and women in particular. In nutshell, the allegations made in the private complaints are that, because of the ignominious comments of the petitioner made during her interviews, one could easily draw an inference that virginity should not be expected from the women in Tamil Nadu meaning thereby, they have no chastity; that, not only the complainants but their family members as well as the entire community were greatly offended and the complainants in particular were subjected to great mental agony as their self-respect and dignity were questioned, as a result, they lost peace of mind; that the interviews would serve as unfair means to look at the Tamil Women with a contemptuous eye; and that Tamil Nadu is a place where Kannagi, the symbol of chastity, is greatly honoured and where modesty is considered more than a womans life; that being so, the slanderous and blasphemous comments made by the petitioner, insulting the community as a whole as also the Indian societal set-up based on pristine principles, attract penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the special enactment viz., The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (in short ‘Act’). The learned Magistrates, after going into the allegations made in the private complaints and the supportive materials produced, have taken cognizance of the offences alleged and consequently, issued summons against the petitioner; hence, the present petitions to quash those proceedings. 4. Before this Court could proceed further to examine the rival contentions projected by the counsels appearing on either side, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Act under which the learned Magistrates have taken cognizance on the private complaints as the same would have a bearing on the controversy involved. Sl. No. Offences taken cognizance by the trial courts Ingredients 1 120-B IPC Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy 2 153 IPC Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot. 3 153-A IPC Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony 4 292 IPC Sale, etc., of obscene materials 5 292-A IPC Printing etc. of grossly indecent or scurrilous matter or matter intended for Blackmail. 6 293 IPC Sale etc. of obscene objects to young person 7 499 IPC Defamation 8 500 IPC Punishment for defamation 9 504 IPC Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace 10 505(1)(b) IPC Statements conducing to public mischief 11 509 IPC Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman 12 Sec.4 of the Act Prohibition of publication or sending by post of books, pamphlets etc., containing indecent representation of women 13 Section 6 Deals with penalty ‘Statement of objects and Reasons’ as found in the Act may be highlighted here:- " The law relating to obscenity in this country is codified in sections 292, 293 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. In Spite of these provisions, there is growing body of indecent representation of women or references to women in publications, particularly advertisements, etc. which have the effect of denigrating women and are derogatory to women. Though there may be no specific intention, these advertisements, publications, etc. have the effect of depraving or corruptive persons. It is therefore, felt necessary to have a separate legislation to effectively prohibit the indecent representation of women through advertisements, books, pamphlets etc." Salient features:- " (a) Indecent representation of women has been defined to mean the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent or derogatory to, or denigrating, women or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals. (b) It is proposed to prohibit all advertisements, publications, etc. which contain indecent representation of women in any form. (c) It has also been proposed to prohibit selling, distribution, circulation of any books, pamphlets, etc. containing indecent representation of women. (d) Offences under the Act are made punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term extending to two years and fine extending to two thousand rupees on first conviction. Second and subsequent convictions will attract a higher punishment." 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused at the outset submits that the offences aforementioned are not made out. According to him, prima facie materials made available in the complaints are not sufficient to attract the penal provisions under the IPC and the Act. The petitioner is a famous film actress in several languages and earned good reputation amongst public. She is a married women, has got children and leading a family life. Only due to animosity and jealousy, the complaints have been filed with a view to tarnish her image. India Today conducted a survey on the subject of premarital sex of girls in big cities all over India by interviewing celebrities like the petitioner and when comments were invited from her, she had offered her fair opinion on the issue involved. What she has stated is, sex is not merely a physical relationship but also it is a matter concerning with disposition of mind and desire; Indian society should get reformed thereby virginity should not be expected from a bride at the time of marriage; educated men should not expect that the bride must be virgin and, in that lines, advised that persons having premarital intercourse should adopt proper safety measures to avoid pregnancy and venereal diseases. A fair and unbiased reading of those comments would suggest that there is nothing wrong in giving her own opinion and making comments on the subject matter. Actually, the petitioner had no intention to insult or cause injury to the feelings of any sect or community or to defame their customs, traditions and culture but made her statements only in good faith. That being so, misleading information has been published in Dhina Thanthi, edition dated 24.09.2005, and finding that a distorted version had been given, legal notice was issued to the said Newspaper. He submitted that the statement of the petitioner as published in India Today falls within the parameters of freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Certain group of persons misconstrued the statement of the petitioner and, without appreciating the same in a proper perspective, they preferred private complaints before various courts. It is false to allege that such statements issued by the petitioner would amount to defamation or criticising the chastity and virginity of the women in Tamil Nadu as well as the cherished Tamil culture. As a matter of fact, nothing has been stated about the women of Tamil Nadu in particular and the petitioner only referred to the social custom prevailing in Indian Society. Nowhere she has referred either the culture of Tamil ladies or any other specific community or people. The respondents/complainants are not aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. to maintain private complaints. Though in some of the complaints, it has been mentioned that those complaints had been filed in representative capacity, the procedure adopted being erroneous, the same are not maintainable. The comments made by the petitioner cannot be said to be defamatory against the member of any class or body to which he or she belongs to. Inasmuch as the so-called offensive statement is nothing but a personal opinion and fair comment of the petitioner, her action is protected by more than one exceptions appended to Section 499 IPC. Only for the purpose of harassing the petitioner, with mala fide intention, the private complaints have been filed and the same is an abuse of process of law and ex facie illegal. To prosecute the petitioner under Section 505 IPC., as per Section 196(a) Cr.P.C., sanction must be obtained from the Central or State Government and it could be seen that, in Crl.O.P. No.31394 of 2005, no such sanction has been obtained, therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is erroneous. By submitting that, as per Section 199 (1) Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance of the offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC unless the complaint is filed by a person aggrieved, learned Senior Counsel argued that the private complaints have been filed by women against whom nothing has been stated in individual capacity, therefore, they have no locus standi to prefer the complaints. Similarly, unless there is intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, offence under Section 504 IPC. will not be made out. In the cases on hand, no allegation has been made in the private complaints to the effect that such statement of the petitioner caused breach of peace. Section 509 IPC. speaks about intending insult to the modesty of a woman through word, gesture or act and the statement made cannot be construed to fit in with the ingredients of the said Section. Likewise, to make out an offence under Section 505 IPC., a person must have issued statements conducing to public mischief with an intention to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person might have been induced to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquility, and in the cases on hand, it can never be said that such mischief has been caused due to the comments made. Section 3 of the Act is applicable only to the publisher. Section 153 IPC. in respect of wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot and Section 153-A IPC. dealing with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, are not attracted in the case of the petitioner. Again, it is submitted that the complainants, most of whom are women, have not stated as to how they were affected by the statement made by the petitioner and nowhere it has been specifically averred that the complaints have been filed on behalf of a group or association. Though it has been bluntly stated that the statement of the petitioner disgraced the women in Tamil Nadu, no substantive material has been produced in that regard. To fortify the contention that offences under Sections 153-A and 505 IPC. are not made out, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 4091 (Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh) and the relevant portion is extracted below:- " 15. The common feature in both Sections being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will "between different" religious or castes and communities it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two sections. " To substantiate the point that the complainants are not actually the persons aggrieved, the decision reported in Air 1972 SC 2609 (G.Narasimhan v. T.V.Chokkappa) has been relied on, wherein, it was held that Section 199 Cr.P.C. being mandatory, if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void and illegal. In respect of the offence alleged under Section 509 IPC., the decision reported in 1925 Sind 271 (Khair Mahomed v. Emperor) has been pressed into service and the ratio laid down therein is to the effect that, in order to constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC., there must be some individual woman or women whose modesty has been outraged and though it is not necessary that individual woman should herself make a complaint, there must be an allegation that the action complained of, has insulted the modesty of some particular woman or women and not merely of any class or order or section of women, however, small. The case law reported in 1995 Crl.L.J. 277(Viswa Nath v. Shambhu Nath Pandeya) has also been relied on wherein it is observed that Section 199 Cr.P.C. contains mandatory provision for the court not to take cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence and that where in a article of a magazine imputations were made against a certain community in general and not any particular group and nor were the said imputations related to the complainant and the said community was also not found to be a definite, identifiable body of people, continuance of the case after the death of complainant under the representation of his advocate would not be proper. In support of the contention that only an aggrieved person can move the court, he placed much reliance on the rulings reported in 1984 Crl.L.J. 1790 (Narottamdas v. Maganbhai), 1985 Crl.L.J. 1039 (K.M.Mathew v. T.V.Balan) and 1998 Crl.L.J. 3973 (Sasikumar B.Menon v. S.Vijayan). Ultimately, by stating that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen hailing from a respectable family and that the allegations are baseless, it is pleaded that the Criminal Original Petitions may be ordered quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before various subordinate courts in the State. 6. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submitted that prima facie materials are available to constitute the offences alleged and therefore the relief sought for by the petitioner to quash the proceedings be negatived. They elaborated the submissions by stating that the petitioner, being a famous cine actress in Tamil Nadu, should have exercised restraint while issuing statements to a publication. The irresponsible statements made and the message conveyed thereby had the effect of corrupting the minds of the younger generation. Though it has been stated that publication of defamatory imputation in Dhina Thanthi has been questioned by the petitioner through legal notice, no further follow-up action has been taken and unfortunately, the contention of the petitioner is that such statement has been issued in good faith. Residing permanently in Tamil Nadu and knowing well that her statement being given to the Tamil Edition of the Magazine would reach one and all in Tamil Nadu, she was very well aware that it would mean the people of Tamil Nadu in general. After eruption of agitations in Tamil Nadu against the petitioner, she made the comments against Tamil Culture and chastity of Tamil women on being interviewed by a reporter of Dhina Thanthi, therefore, it is very much clear that the imputations are meant only against the people of Tamil Nadu. Though the petitioner has taken shelter under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India stating that the statement made by her is not conclusive and it falls within the parameters of freedom of speech and expression, the opinion and comments made by her will not fit in with such constitutional guarantee. Even if she has stated so in general terms, it is a derogatory statement and propagation of immorality and indecency in social and family life. At any rate, the entire women in Tamil Nadu have been offended by the statements resulting in ever-widening agitations throughout the State and clash between groups, thereby internal peace of the State was put to peril. Of course, she may express her personal opinion and experience about premarital sex but she is not supposed to propagate or preach her lewd ideology to the society. When scientists, academicians, scholars and experts are making efforts to present the subject of sexology to the commoners in a way that it would be rightly understood and ethically acted upon so that moral degradation would be avoided, through her comments, on the one hand she passed on a wrong message to the youngsters and on the other hand injured the feelings of the Tamil community in particular and criticised the Indian societal set-up in general. Each and every complainant herein representing the public is an aggrieved person and, from a careful reading of the provisions of the Code, it is apparent that Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. is not attracted and that in the light of Section 199(6) Cr.P.C., the complainants have got every right to lodge a complaint before the competent court of law. On the question of locus standi, the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra’s case (1980 SCC (Cri) 777, followed by umpteen number of cases, has categorically observed that such aggrieved persons may set the law in motion in the larger interests of the society. Some of the complainants in these batch of cases are unmarried women, practising advocates and involved in public life and further in their representative capacity to represent Tamil and Indian culture, they have filed such complaints and on the ground of locus standi, the complaints cannot be rejected. Considerable damage and great mental agony had been caused and the impact of her statements could be felt by one and all in the State and that being so, the extent of damage and injury could be assessed only during the course of trial. Apart from the complaint, other substantive materials are yet to be produced before the learned Magistrate. The defence put forth by the petitioner, at best, may have to be projected before the trial court while adjudicating upon the issues. Learned counsels for the respondents in support of their contentions relied on certain decisions and relevant portions thereof are quoted below. A. AIR 1965 SC 881 (Rajit D.Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra) – extract from Head Note (b), " The cherished rights of freedom of speech or expression on which our democracy rests is meant for the expression of free opinions to change political or social conditions or for the advancement of human knowledge. This freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions which may be thought necessary in the interest of the general public and one such is the interest of public decency and morality. Section 292 Penal Code manifestly embodies such a restriction because the law against obscenity, of course, correctly understood and applied, seeks no more than to promote public decency and morality. The word obscenity is really not vague because it is a word which is well understood even if person differ in their attitude to what is obscene and what is not. " B. AIR 1981 SC 1514 (Sewakram v. R.K.Karanjiya) – extract from Head Note (B):- " Journalists do not enjoy any special privilege, and have no greater freedom than others to make any imputations or allegations, sufficient to ruin the reputation of a citizen. Journalists are in no better position than any other person. Even the truth of an allegation does not permit a justification under First Exception unless it is proved to be in the public good. The question whether or not it was for public good is a question of fact like any other relevant fact in issue. If they make assertions of facts as opposed to comments on them, they must either justify these assertions or, in the limited cases specified in the Ninth Exception, show that the attack on the character of another was for the public good, or that it was made in good faith. …" It was also observed therein that the questions of "good faith" and "public good" etc. are questions of facts to be decided after the regular trial is held and should not have been answered at the stage when even the accused was not examined. C. In re: D.C. Saxena (AIR 1996 SC 2481):- " 13. Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, would be subject to Article 19(2), 129 and 215 of the Constitution, in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence etc. Article 3 read with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights grants to everyone liberty and right to freedom of opinion and expression. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 to which India is a signatory and had ratified, provides that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, to receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds but Clause (3) thereof imposes corresponding duty on the exercise of the right and responsibilities. It may, therefore, be subject to certain restrictions but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary for the respect of life and reputations of others for the protection of national security or public order or of public health or moral. It would thus be seen that liberty of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) brings within its ambit, the corresponding duty and responsibility and puts limitations on the exercise of that liberty. " D. Harijai Singh, Re v. , (1996) 6 SCC 466, at page 472 : " 9. It is thus needless to emphasise that a free and healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of a true democracy. In a democratic set-up, there has to be an active and intelligent participation of the people in all spheres and affairs of their community as well as the State. It is their right to be kept informed about current political, social, economic and cultural life as well as the burning topics and important issues of the day in order to enable them to consider and form broad opinion about the same and the way in which they are being managed, tackled and administered by the Government and its functionaries. To achieve this objective the people need a clear and truthful account of events, so that they may form their own opinion and offer their own comments and viewpoints on such matters and issues and select their further course of action. The primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the countrys political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion and can be an instrument of social change. It may be pointed out here that Mahatma Gandhi in his autobiography has stated that one of the objectives of the newspaper is to understand the proper feelings of the people and give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is to fearlessly express popular defects. It, therefore, turns out that the press should have the right to present anything which it thinks fit for publication. 10. But it has to be remembered that this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled licence. ….. " 7. It would be appropriate to deal with the legal issues first and thereafter the contentions projected on either side and the other vital aspects involved. 8. Since the auxiliary questions relating to all other offences would arise for consideration only if the court comes to a definite conclusion on the main question as to whether the allegation of defamation is prima facie made out, it is sufficient to restrict the discussion with the said aspect viz., whether, prima facie, the plea of defamation is available to the complainants in order to reject the prayer of the petitioner before this court and consequently, allow the proceedings continue before the trial courts. 9. Section 499 IPC relating to defamation reads as follows:- " 499. Defamation- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, of defame that person. Explanation 1-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4-No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." The basic idea of defamation law is simple and clear. It is an attempt to balance the private right to protect one’s reputation with the public right to freedom of speech. Anything that injures a person’s reputation can be defamatory. If a comment brings a person into contempt, disrepute or ridicule, it is likely to be defamatory. Such defamation may be by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or visible representation. Whether a statement is defamatory involves determining what the statement means or "imputes", and then assessing whether that meaning or imputation materially injured the reputation of the complainant having regard to the truth of the allegations. What the petitioner intended her words to convey is generally irrelevant; rather, courts would apply the meaning that the ordinary and reasonable person would draw from the material, and pose themselves the questions viz., is the statement true, does it matter if it is true, how will readers interpret it, and what was the mens rea of the person who made it. It must be noticed that the essence of the offence of defamation consists in its tendency to cause that description of pain which is felt by a person who knows himself to be the object of the unfavourable sentiments of his fellow beings and those inconveniences to which a person who is the object of such unfavourable sentiments is exposed. While keeping the said aspect in mind, courts should be very slow to draw an adverse inference against the accused and, in order to come to correct conclusion, it is necessary to make a general assessment whether the statement made is offensive or indecent in the sense that it outraged public decency, and whether it offended community standards of decency in the circumstances and in the manner in which it was presented. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a cine actress, who gained popularity in Tamil Nadu to such a level that her fans went to the extreme extent of constructing a temple for her. She is not an academician or a researcher in sexology to preach the subject in the fashion understood by her. It seems that she had studied only upto VIII Standard. Apart from the field of cinema, she does not have any expertise or scholarly knowledge in the area of sociology or sexology. She is neither a member of any social or women organization fighting for the cause of women or their upliftment nor involved in public life. Thus, she cannot be categorised as an expert in sexology or any connected branch of that subject. In such circumstances, the comments made at the interview to India Today on the subject of premarital sex have to be assessed. While expressing her individual opinion, she has stated that, in the Indian Society stuffed with conservative taboos, woman is gradually flapping her wings; that the society should get liberated from the thinking that women should not lose their virginity till marriage and that educated persons should not expect their life partners to be with virginity at the time of marriage. She even went ahead to state that if a girl is very serious about her relationship with her opposite sex, the parents should allow such relationship and that, while indulging in premarital sex, care should be taken to avoid pregnancy and venereal diseases. Had the petitioner stated that she as a parent and member of a family would introduce and teach such lifestyle amongst her family members, then it is her personal opinion. But, the problem arose when she addressed the society at large to bring up the children in a fashion heralded and suggested by her in the name of liberation of women and not to care about being virgin, and further stated that a groom should not expect his prospective bride to be with virginity. Not stopping therewith, after publication of her statement in India Today, when a clarification was sought for by a reporter of Dhina Thanthi stating that such statement would lead to cultural degradation, the petitioner questioned as to which culture they are referring to and asked as to how many men and women are in Tamil Nadu who did not indulge in pre-marital sex. She was proud enough to say that she used to be transparent and open in her speech and she does not bother about those who do not understand her comments. Though it is stated that she has not given any such reply or clarification and that a legal notice was issued to the Newspaper, it seems that no further action has been pursued thereafter. It must be pointed out that the comments made at the first instance would have gone vanished in course of time if the petitioner withdrew her statement by showing immediate reaction having regard to the intensity of the situation. Learned Senior Counsel again pointed out that a legal notice was issued to the Daily to publish her objections immediately and to make it clear that she did not actually mean what has been widely understood; therefore, it is repeated that the matter was not pursued further and that it is a disputed area where this court does not desire to enter into. If she was so much serious, she could have very well called for a press meet and clarified her position. 11. It is well accepted in a democratic society that individuals have a right to express their own views and preferences. Would it be taken to mean that such freedom is free from restriction and limitation. The answer is, an emphatic ‘no’. Freedom of speech is important but not absolute. Under the exercise of freedom of movement, if one would walk on the middle of the road, the freedom granted to vehicle owners would take away his/her life. Therefore, the rights and freedom given to a citizen must be exercised within its reasonable restriction and the same should not invade the rights of others. Viewing in that perspective, this court is unable to appreciate the plea projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Admittedly, the first comments made in the Magazine have not been denied and the comments made on the second occasion by way of reply to the Tamil Daily are disputed. On the grounds of locus standi and referring to the exceptions appended to Section 499, viz., i) It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for public good that the imputation should be made or published. ii) It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever regarding the conduct or character of a public servant in discharge of his public function. iii) It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the conduct or character of any person touching any public question. iv) It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report or result of a Court of Justice of any such proceedings. v) It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the merits of any case, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or the conduct of any person as a party, or the witness or the agent, in such case. vi) It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the merits of any performance which an author has submitted to the judgement of the public. vii) It is not defamation if a person having any authority over another person, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. viii) It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation. ix) It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another person, provided it is made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests. x) It is not defamation to convey a caution, intended for the good of a person to whom conveyed or for public good, it is submitted that inasmuch the act of the petitioner is protected by some of the aforesaid exceptions, taking cognizance of the offences by the courts below against the petitioner should be held to be illegal. In general, the available defences are, justification, contextual truth, absolute privilege, publication of public documents, fair report of proceedings of public concern, qualified privilege for provision of certain information, honest opinion, innocent dissemination and triviality. As observed earlier, if really the petitioner had acted in good faith, she would have taken immediate steps either by withdrawing the statement made or refuting the allegation by convening a press meet or by further pursuing the legal action against the Daily after issuance of legal notice. Further, the petitioner did not come out with specific defence of good faith, pointing out the circumstances in which her case could be brought under any of the exceptions appended to the penal provisions. Having not done so, the contentions now made after commencement of the proceedings would in no way advance the case of the petitioner. In order to establish good faith and bona fide it has to be seen first the circumstances under which the statement was made; secondly, whether there was any malice; thirdly, whether the accused made any enquiry before he/she made the allegations; fourthly, whether there are reasons to accept the version that he/she acted with care and caution and finally whether there is preponderance of probability that the accused acted in good faith. Whether such circumstances have been established is again a question of fact. This court, at this stage while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot traverse into the same and at best, such elements to be examined on facts must be left to the decision of the trial court. Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. In the case on hand, in order to do substantial justice, it is but proper to allow the proceedings to continue. 12. Coming to the question as to whether the respondents/complainants would come under the purview of ‘persons affected’, it must be made clear that, in the light of the various aspects adverted above, everyone who claims to be affected by the statements of the petitioner is deemed to be an aggrieved person and in what manner they are aggrieved is purely a question of fact which must be decided during the course of trial. It is pertinent here to refer to the ruling of the Apex Court in Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi, (1996) 6 SCC 263, at page 267, wherein, while allowing the appeal in part, it was held thus : " 13. ….. on a reading of the complaint we do not think that we will be justified at this stage to quash that complaint. It is not the province of this Court to appreciate at this stage the evidence or scope of and meaning of the statement. Certain allegations came to be made but whether these allegations do constitute defamation of the Marwari community as a business class and whether the appellant had intention to cite as an instance of general feeling among the community and whether the context in which the said statement came to be made, as is sought to be argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, are all matters to be considered by the learned Magistrate at a later stage. At this stage, we cannot embark upon weighing the evidence and come to any conclusion to hold, whether or not the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence punishable under Section 500. It is the settled legal position that a court has to read the complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations disclosed constitute an offence under Section 499 triable by the Magistrate. The Magistrate prima facie came to the conclusion that the allegations might come within the definition of defamation under Section 499 IPC and could be taken cognizance of. But these are the facts to be established at the trial. The case set up by the appellant are either defences open to be taken or other steps of framing a charge at the trial at whatever stage known to law. Prima facie we think that at this stage it is not a case warranting quashing of the complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Nasik. To that extent, the High Court was right in refusing to quash the complaint under Section 500 IPC." When citizens affected by the derogatory remarks against Indian Society and Tamil Culture complain the same as a member of Indian Society stating that they are greatly offended, such complaints cannot be so lightly brushed aside. I find, prima facie, materials are available to constitute not only the offences committed but also to substantiate that the complainants are ‘aggrieved persons’. The law is well settled that even an individual composing a group can file a complaint even if he/she is not mentioned by name if he/she is aggrieved but the group must be determinate and identifiable body. In the light of the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie offence under Section 499 IPC. is made out and that the complainants are aggrieved persons in the eye of law to set the law in motion. 13. Pausing here, urged with a sense of social concern, this Court deems it essential to comment upon certain vital aspects having relevancy to the issue involved. One of the important aspects of sexual ethics concerns the emotion of love. Ever since the ancient times, the essence of sex has been given special attention in philosophy. Sex has been commonly acknowledged as a wholesome reality and mostly in our literature, we find that sex has been extolled not only in terms of its Divine connotation, but even in its down-to-earth human emotional context. In either case, there has been no confusion of sex with any kind of lust. In this country, though cultural heritage, customs, usage, languages etc. differ from State to State, insofar sex is concerned, throughout the country, certain conservative ideas are adopted all these days. Chastity is considered here to be a lifestyle that brings freedom, respect, peace, and even romance without regret and it liberates a couple from the selfish attitudes of using each other as objects, and makes them capable of their love. No one questions his would-be whether she is a virgin or not, because, everyone faithfully believes and has a good point of view about his bride or her bridegroom as the case may be that she or he would be chaste and modest. In India, chastity and love are explicitly regulated, that is why, women are assigned an elevated position in society and they are ordinarily not approachable by men except through legal means viz., marriage. In the other situation, where love and chastity are implicitly promoted; but not regulated, one could witness, women’s position is subject to the utter tedium of placing themselves at the disposal and protection of their men. One may wonder as to which one of these two sets of conditions are apt to enhance love and chastity. Incidentally, it is notable that the so called open or permissive societies, blindly lauded by the petitioner, are ipso facto incapable of promoting conditions for any deep and intense love relationships. Their conditions lead to waywardness and wantonness, in the process of seeking transient affairs, if not while indulging in momentary and lustful pleasures. It is aptly said, Sex takes the least amount of time, but causes the most amount of trouble, underlining the real and uncompromising risks of sexual expression when done in any setting outside the bounds of marriage. Sex, in its proper season, is one of the most beautiful expressions that two people can share. For it to truly reach its greatest potential, there are rules and guidelines to help the people accept the great responsibilities that come with the single greatest power, the ability to create a new life. No doubt, sex has been eulogised in many ways, both in the West and India. Yet, there has come to be a difference between the Indian and Western conceptualisation of sex. Unlike Indian Society, in the west in particular, sexual relationships are generally viewed as the private preference of each individual as perceived by the petitioner. No one has the right to determine with whom, or how one conducts ones sex life. What occurs between consenting adults, no matter what sex or how many, is usually condoned. Premarital sex is considered quite acceptable, normal, well within the bounds of morality, and indeed desirable. Dating begins at a very young age and every socially well-adjusted youngster is expected to have several girlfriends and boyfriends by a certain age. Use of condoms by school going children has become a common phenomenon there. Thus, those who grow up in the West are weaned on sex in both subtle and not so subtle ways. That is why, to many Westerners, sex can be worthwhile as long as it embodies the sweetness mutually attainable by lovers. Individuals of opposite sex there prefer the desirability and enjoyability of living together in mutual love and comfort to the constant annoyance and boredom of living as singles. They aim at maximising enjoyment of life. In quite contrast thereto, in Indian society, sex is regarded as something inexorably desirable in itself only through marriage and one would pray while entering conjugal life that the marital relationship should continue even after death in the world of souls. If such social set-up strengthened by moral and ethical ideology is criticised, it would result in adverse impact both emotional and consequential. The purpose of highlighting the above aspects is that to-day, courts are flooded with stream of criminal cases involving sexual offences. In an era of wide open attitudes about sexuality and at a time when teenagers are flooded with conflicting messages about their own sexuality, if such statements are made under the garb of freedom of speech and expression, the outcome would be unwanted pregnancies or spread of sexually transmitted diseases that would kill or cripple the younger generation. Morality is not old-fashioned or irrelevant in a modern world, for, morality is not simply a creation of religion but rather a necessary underpinning of a healthy and successful society. While many things have changed a great deal over the years, some things have not changed and other things should not change viz., moral and ethical values. There would be no purpose in hiding the fact that to-day’s society is running backward turning away from ethical and moral norms and sexually inciting materials are in prevalence everywhere. In such circumstances, persons like petitioner, who succeeded in gaining the recognition of the society, should endeavour to refine the society by giving some good advices and if they feel they cannot do so, then, they should keep quiet confining themselves to their own agenda. But, in the name of freedom of speech, if they pass on messages corrupting the minds of the youngsters, the same would not be tolerated since ultimately it would lead to abrupt increase of sexual offences. There would be no second opinion at all that if such scabrous views are propagated, cultural degradation will be the resultant position ultimately leading to upsetting of social order. Thus, Freedom of expression would not give an unbridled licence to a citizen of India to speak about free sex/pre-marital sex. It is the perpetual understanding of a right mind that both premarital and extramarital relationships are molecules of immorality. Largely, such relationship advocated to be adopted by the petitioner can also be termed as ‘cohabitation’ and the definition available for the term is ‘a non-marital heterosexual arrangement or a semi-permanent heterosexual relationship outside the scope of marriage’. The petitioner addressed the society in particular the younger generation to acquire the right of cohabitation. With a fair approach and unbiased mind, one has to judge the issue between the two conflicting views on the right of cohabitation/premarital or extramarital sex. According to one view, rather a traditional view, such relationship is completely wrong and promotes sexual promiscuity which is injurious to physical and mental health. It is pertinent to point out that such view is still reflected in the adultery laws which make extramarital sex illegal. On the other extreme, there is sexual anarchy which advocates the removal of all sexual taboos and controls with full and universal availability of sex, the only restriction being the prohibition of sexual violence. In between these two poles, the judicious and balanced view is humanistic liberalism which holds that morality inheres in one’s deeds rather than the commission or omission of the act itself. Immorality in the present context seems to refer to nothing more or less than extra-marital or pre-marital relationships. One cannot justify an agreement or a contract between a man and a woman living together without getting married providing for the terms and conditions of a possible cohabitation and/or future separation, because, such contract is contrary to public policy and illegal as it is quite obvious that the object of such contract is to promote sexual immorality. In law, a woman cannot claim maintenance from the cohabiting man. To claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she must come within the category of wife and the term ‘wife’ means a legally wedded wife both in Hindu and Muslim Law. The legal status and rights and obligations of partners in premarital and extramarital sex are just naught contrary to those available in case of married couples who could get solution for numerous legal problems concerning the disposition of jointly accumulated property, money and debts as well as the custody, guardianship and maintenance of children born to them. The other ugly face of such relationships is birth of children who would be branded by the society as ‘illegitimate children’ and the scar and stigma those innocents would bear throughout their life because of the no sin committed by them but due to the acts of the lust-stricken couples is really an injustice caused to them. Such children would not have the status of a legitimate child in the matter of succession. In recent past, several films have been produced, the central theme being teenage love; thereby, a wrong and ribald message is given to the teenagers as well as school going children that falling in love is a part of heroism, with the result, elopements have become routine incidents and court is flooded with Habeas Corpus Petitions at the instance of parents in search of the eloped pubescents below the age group of 18. Police officials, amongst their hectic schedule of maintaining law and order problems, also laden with the task of going behind the eloped ones throughout the state and sometimes beyond the State boundaries. It is also witnessed that, in the thousands of cases registered, most of the victims had been traced and, after completion of the proceedings, the traced ones were entrusted to the custody of the concerned and hundred of cases, where victims could not be traced, are still pending. Enquiries in those cases revealed that the victims seem to have been induced to indulge in such acts due to the impact of the movies and those victims do not have even the correct idea of what really a family life is. In some cases, while leading life in the society, they have to encounter with so many astringent and acerbic ordeals and when they come back to their parents for want of security, they are rejected by them fearing that a bad image would be depicted of the family by the neighbours and society. Since sexology is a delicate and sensitive subject, introducing the same in schools as a subject has not been put into practice till to-day. In fact, a Parliamentary Committee has been constituted to study the viability of introducing sex education at Schools, however, some experts and scholars on the subject would argue against the introduction of such scheme. They cite the example of the society in Japan, which has a very low teenage pregnancy rate but does not have a national sex-education program at all, and point out that conservative norms about early marriage and premarital sex worked out this phenomenon better than the availability of fertility control. 14. Now coming back to the core issue, it is also seen that when the petitioner was granted bail by order of the trial court dated 16.11.2005, one of the conditions imposed was that she should not make any public statement which is subject matter of the dispute till the disposal of the case. Learned counsel for the complainants/respondents submits that, in spite of such direction by the court, she was continuously indulging in passing comments about her earlier statements and the same also appeared in news items and such action on the part of the petitioner would amount to violation of court directions. In that regard, he referred to the address given by the petitioner during question hour at a symposium which has been published as a news item in the English Daily ‘Indian Express’, edition dated 19.07.2007. The relevant portion is extracted below:- " We talk about 52 years of Independence. I don’t know whether we really have it when it comes to freedom of expression," said actor Khushboo. She was speaking on the sidelines of the Symposium organised by the FICCI Ladies Organisation and Ellements, on the subject, ‘Justice – Right or Privilege’. ‘I have 24 cases pending against me. The law was bought in my case. Why was I denied bail for six days?’ she asked. A case is even pending against her in Indore. The question might go unanswered, but the actor has a point to prove in her customary irate statements. "We must get together and say we have the individual right to speak. Not what some lawyer speaks, but actually speak the truth," she confided. "I am sorry to say but India is not going to progress if this continues. We have to fight against the so-called laws.", she added" (emphasis supplied) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner did not say anything about the above referred news item. It is very unfortunate that an accused in a sensitive case, who has been granted relief and directed to comply with certain conditions so as to ensure that again a turbulent situation should not arise, had the audacity to pass adverse comments against the court and the legal system. She is directed to exercise restraint till the disposal of the cases. 15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this court finds that there are no special features in this case to suggest that it is not expedient and not in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Assuming that the imputations made could be covered by any or many of the exceptions appended to Section 499 IPC, several questions still remain to be examined whether such imputations were made in good faith, in what circumstances, with what intention, etc. All those aspects can be examined on the basis of evidence in the trial. Answers to these questions at this stage, even before the plea of the accused is recorded can only be a priori conclusions. Good faith and public good are, at best, questions of fact and matters for evidence. So, the trial must go on. Inasmuch as the allegations made against the petitioner/actress are interconnected to the Magazine as well in publishing the controversial interview, this court deems it an unnecessary exercise to give separate findings thereon as the same would also be dealt with by the trial court on the facts involved. Whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of the publication is a matter to be determined by the court depending upon the facts of each case. At the risk of repetition, it is again pointed out that the expression ‘some person aggrieved’ was not intended to be restricted to the person actually defamed. It must be determined in each case according to its own circumstances whether the complainant could be said to be in a legal sense a person aggrieved. Again, it all depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. 16. The above batch of cases emerges out of one cause of action. The allegations and defence projected in all the cases appear to be the same. The trial of the cases could also be completed soon since witnesses and documents are few. It is also noticed that, despite the direction issued by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner could not restrain herself. Therefore, in order to avoid scattered trial of cases involving same cause of action before several courts, it is but proper to direct joint trial and disposal of all the cases that are pending, instead of taking up separate proceedings against her for violation of court’s orders. Accordingly, all the cases are directed to be transferred to the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who shall conduct joint trial of the cases and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The trial courts concerned are in turn directed to transmit forthwith the papers to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for commencement of the trial proceedings at once. 17. It is made clear that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall decide the cases on their own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations/comments made in this order. 30.04.2008. Index : yes / no. Internet : yes / no. Office to note:- Communicate this Order immediately to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, as well as the trial courts concerned for compliance.
  2. vedaprakash Says:

    Supreme Court of India
    S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr. on 28 April, 2010
    http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327342/
    Author: . B.S. Chauhan
    Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma, B.S. Chauhan
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 913 of 2010

    [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4010 of 2008]

    S. Khushboo … Appellant Versus

    Kanniammal & Anr. … Respondents WITH

    Criminal Appeal 914/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6127 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 915/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6257 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 916/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6258 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 917/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6259 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 918/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 7049 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 919/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6264 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 920/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6277 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 921/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 7052 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 922/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 7053 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 923/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 7050 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 924/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 7051 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 925/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4761 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 926/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4772 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 927/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4767 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 928/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4763 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 929/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4765 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 930/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4762 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 931/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4764 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 932/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4770 of 2008 Criminal Appeal 933/2010 @SLP (Crl.) No. 4769 of 2008 J U D G M E N T

    Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J

    1. Leave granted in all the cases.

    2. The appellant is a well known actress who has approached this Court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings pending against her. As many as 23 Criminal Complaints were filed against her, mostly in the State of Tamil Nadu, for the offences contemplated under Sections 499, 500 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter `IPC’] and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 [hereinafter `Act 1986′]. The trigger for the same were some remarks made by the appellant in an interview to a leading news magazine and later on the same issue was reported in a distorted manner in another periodical. Faced with the predicament of contesting the criminal proceedings instituted against her in several locations, the appellant had approached the High Court of Madras, praying for the quashing of these proceedings through the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter `Cr.PC.’]. The High Court rejected her plea vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.2008. At the same time, in order to prevent the inconvenience of 2

    litigating the same subject-matter in multiple locations directed that all the cases instituted against the appellant be consolidated and tried together by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (Chennai). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant approached this Court by way of a batch of Special Leave Petitions.

    3. Before addressing the legal aspects of the case before us, it would be useful to examine the relevant facts. In September 2005, `India Today’ a fortnightly news magazine had conducted a survey on the subject of the sexual habits of people residing in the bigger cities of India. One of the issues discussed as part of this survey was the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex. As a part of this exercise, the magazine had gathered and published the views expressed by several individuals from different segments of society, including those of the appellant. The appellant expressed her personal opinion wherein she had noted the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex, especially in the context of live-in relationships and called for the societal acceptance of the same. However, appellant had also qualified her remarks by observing that girls should take adequate precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of venereal diseases. This can be 3

    readily inferred from the statement which was published, a rough translation of which is reproduced below: "According to me, sex is not only concerned with the body; but also concerned with the conscious. I could not understand matters such as changing boyfriends every week. When a girl is committed to her boyfriend, she can tell her parents and go out with him. When their daughter is having a serious relationship, the parents should allow the same. Our society should come out of the

    thinking that at the time of the marriage, the girls should be with virginity.

    None of the educated men, will expect that the girl whom they are marrying should be with

    virginity. But when having sexual relationship the girls should protect themselves from conceiving and getting venereal diseases." These remarks were published alongside a survey, the relevant extracts of which are stated below:

    "Will you marry a person who had relationship with others?

    18% – Yes, 71% – No

    Is it necessary to be a virgin till the time of marriage?

    65% – Yes, 26% – No

    The remaining percentage of people said: Do not know/Cannot say

    82% women had given an opinion that a girl should be a virgin at the time of marriage."

    4. Subsequently, `Dhina Thanthi’, a Tamil daily carried a news item on 24.9.2005 which first quoted the appellant’s statement published in `India Today’ and then opined that 4

    it had created a sensation all over the State of Tamil Nadu. This news item also reported a conversation between the appellant and a correspondent from `Dhina Thanthi’, wherein the appellant had purportedly defended her views in the following manner (rough translation reproduced below): "The persons who are protesting against my interview, are talking about which culture? Is there anyone who does not know about sex in Tamil Nadu? Is there anyone who does not know about

    AIDS? How many men and women do not have sex

    before marriage?

    Why are people saying that after the marriage the husband and wife should be honest and faithful to each other? One should have confidence in the

    other, only to avoid the mistakes from being

    committed. If the husband, without the knowledge of the wife, or the wife, without the knowledge of the husband, have sex with other persons, if a disease is caused through that, the same will

    affect both the persons. It will also affect the children. Only because of this, they are saying like that."

    However, soon after the publication of the above mentioned news item, the appellant had sent a legal notice dated 2.10.2005 to the Editor of `Dhina Thanthi’, categorically denying that she had made the statement quoted above. In fact, the appellant had asked the publisher to withdraw the news-item carried on 24.9.2005 and to publish her objections prominently within three days of receipt of the notice, failing which the appellant would be constrained to take appropriate legal action against the newspaper. 5

    5. As outlined above, the publication of these statements in `India Today’ and `Dhina Thanthi’ drew criticism from some quarters and several persons and organisations filed criminal complaints against the appellant. For instance, the complainant in the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 4010 of 2008 has stated that she is a married woman who is the Treasurer of a District-level unit of the Pattali Makal Katchi [hereinafter `PMK’], a political party, and is also involved in social service. She had quoted some parts of the statements published in `India Today’ and `Dhina Thanthi’ to allege that the appellant’s interview had brought great shame on her since it had suggested that women of her profile had engaged in premarital sex. The complainant further alleged that the appellant’s remarks had caused mental harassment to a large section of women, and in particular women from Tamil Nadu were being looked down upon with disrespect and contempt.

    6. In the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 4764 of 2008, the complainant is a male advocate who is a District Secretary of the PMK for Salem District. In his complaint, there is no direct reference to the news-item published in `Dhina Thanthi’ on 24.9.2005. Instead the complainant has stated that he found second-hand accounts of the same to be 6

    quite shocking since the appellant had questioned the need for women to maintain their virginity or chastity. It was alleged that these remarks were an abuse against the dignity of the Tamil women and that they had grossly affected and ruined the culture and morality of the people of the State. It was further submitted that these statements could persuade people to involve themselves in unnatural crimes and that the appellant’s acts amounted to commission of offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 504, 505(1)(b) and 509 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of Act 1986. Similarly, in the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 6127 of 2008, the complainant is a lady advocate who has been practicing in the Trichy District Courts for more than 10 years. She has quoted some portions from the statements published in `India Today’ and `Dhina Thanthi’ to submit that the appellant’s acts were punishable under Sections 292, 500, 504, 505(1)(b) and (c), 505(2) and 509 IPC read with Section 6 of Act 1986.

    7. Likewise, in the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 6259 of 2008, the complainant has stated that she is a married woman belonging to a reputed family and that she is serving as the President of the District Magalir Association of the PMK (in Thiruvarur) and rendering social service. In her 7

    complaint, some parts of the appellant’s statements have been quoted to allege that she had suffered great mental agony and shame since it was suggested that all women in Tamil Nadu had lost their virginity before marriage. In this respect, the complainant has alleged that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 504, 505(1)(b) and 509 IPC read with Section 6 of Act 1986. It is noteworthy that in most of the other cases filed in various districts of Tamil Nadu, the complainants are functionaries of the PMK and similar allegations have been levelled against the appellant. Oddly enough, one of the complaints had even been filed in Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

    8. As mentioned earlier, the appellant approached the High Court of Madras to seek quashing of all the criminal proceedings instituted against her in this connection. In its judgment dated 30.4.2008, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, on the premise that the relevant considerations in this case were questions of fact which were best left to be determined by a trial judge. The High Court noted that two basic questions were involved in the case. Firstly, whether the appellant could claim any of the 8

    recognised defences against the allegations of having committed defamation, as contemplated by Section 499 IPC. Secondly, whether the complainants could at all be described as `aggrieved persons’ within the meaning of Section 199 Cr.PC since that was linked to the question of whether the complaints had been made in a bona fide manner. The High Court thought it fit to leave both these questions for consideration by a trial judge, and in a partial reprieve to the appellant it was directed that all the criminal proceedings pending against her be consolidated and tried by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai. However, the High Court also proceeded to record its own views regarding the contents of the appellant’s statements and even made some strong observations condemning the incidence of premarital sex and live-in relationships.

    9. In the proceedings before us, Ms. Pinki Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the complainants (respondents in these appeals) were not `persons aggrieved’ within the meaning of Section 199(1)(b) Cr.PC and hence they were not competent to institute private complaints for the alleged offences. It was stated that the appellant had made a fair and reasonable comment 9

    as a prudent person, and therefore, the opinion expressed by the appellant is fully protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. Furthermore, it was contended that even if the allegations in the various complaints are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose any offence whatsoever and the opinion of the appellant does not, by any means, fall within the ambit of Sections 499, 500 and 505 IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of Act 1986. It was also canvassed that the criminal proceedings had been instituted in a mala fide manner by the workers of a particular political party, with the intention of vilifying the appellant and gaining undue political mileage.

    10. In response, Sh. Kanagaraj, Sr. Adv., Sh. S. Gowthaman, Adv. and Sh. B. Balaji, Adv. appearing for the respondents, submitted that since the High Court has refused to quash the complaints, this Court should not interfere either since the complaints require determination of factual controversies that are best left to be decided by a court of first instance. They have asserted that the complainants in these cases are mostly women belonging to Tamil Nadu, who were personally aggrieved by the appellant’s remarks. 10

    It was argued that the endorsement of pre-marital sex by a prominent person such as the appellant would have a morally corruptive effect on the minds of young people. Her statement would definitely obscure some basic moral values and expose young people to bizarre ideas about premarital sex, thereby leading to deviant behaviour which would adversely affect public notions of morality. It was contended that the constitutional protection for speech and expression is not absolute and that it is subject to reasonable restrictions based on considerations of `public order’, `defamation’, `decency and morality’ among other grounds.

    11. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

    12. In order to decide this case, it will not be proper for us to either condemn or endorse the views expressed by the appellant. When the criminal law machinery is set in motion, the superior courts should not mechanically use either their inherent powers or writ jurisdiction to intervene with the process of investigation and trial. However, such forms of judicial review can be exercised to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct some grave 11

    errors that might have been committed by the subordinate courts. [See decision of this Court in: M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128]. In the past, this Court has even laid down some guidelines for the exercise of inherent power by the High Courts to quash criminal proceedings in such exceptional cases. We can refer to the decision in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, to take note of two such guidelines which are relevance for the present case :-

    "(1). Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in

    their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. … (7). Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

    ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

    accused and with a view to spite him due to

    private and personal grudge."

    13. It is of course a settled legal proposition that in a case where there is sufficient evidence against the accused, which may establish the charge against him/her, the proceedings cannot be quashed. In M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Ltd. Vs. M/s Biological E. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1869, this Court observed that a criminal complaint or a charge sheet can only be quashed by superior courts in 12

    exceptional circumstances, such as when the allegations in a complaint do not support a prima facie case for an offence. Similarly, in M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9, this Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed but such a power is to be exercised sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been specifically laid down in the statutory provisions themselves. It was further observed that superior courts "may examine the questions of fact" when the use of the criminal law machinery could be in the nature of an abuse of authority or when it could result in injustice. In Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2009) 14 SCC 466, this Court relied on earlier precedents to clarify that a High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine complaint but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases. In fact it was observed:

    "One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to prosecution and

    humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint."

    14. There can be no quarrel about this Court’s competence to quash criminal proceedings pending before the 13

    subordinate courts. However, this power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In light of the position summarized above, we can examine the present case with two considerations in mind, namely whether the allegations made against the appellant support a prima facie case for the offences mentioned in the respective complaints, and whether the complaints were made in a bona fide manner.

    15. Perusal of the complaints reveals that most of the allegations have pertained to offences such as defamation (Sections 499, 501 and 502 IPC), obscenity (Section 292 IPC), indecent representation of women and incitement among others. At the outset, we are of the view that there is absolutely no basis for proceeding against the appellant in respect of some of the alleged offences. For example, the Act, 1986 was enacted to punish publishers and advertisers who knowingly disseminate materials that portray women in an indecent manner. However, this statute cannot be used in the present case where the appellant has merely referred to the incidence of pre-marital sex in her statement which was published by a news magazine and subsequently reported in another periodical. It would defy logic to invoke the offences mentioned in this statute to proceed against the appellant, who cannot be described as an `advertiser’ or 14

    `publisher’ by any means. Similarly, Section 509 IPC criminalises a `word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman’ and in order to establish this offence it is necessary to show that the modesty of a particular woman or a readily identifiable group of women has been insulted by a spoken word, gesture or physical act. Clearly this offence cannot be made out when the complainants’ grievance is with the publication of what the appellant had stated in a written form. Likewise, some of the complaints have mentioned offences such as those contemplated by Section 153A IPC (`Promoting enmity between different groups etc.,’) which have no application to the present case since the appellant was not speaking on behalf of one group and the content of her statement was not directed against any particular group either.

    16. Coming to the substance of the complaints, we fail to see how the appellant’s remarks amount to `obscenity’ in the context of Section 292 IPC. Clause (1) to Section 292 states that the publication of a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure, etc., will be deemed obscene, if –

    7 It is lascivious (i.e. expressing or causing sexual desire) or

    15

    7 Appeals to the prurient interest (i.e. excessive interest in sexual matters), or

    7 If its effect, or the effect of any one of the items, tends to deprave and corrupt persons, who are likely to read, see, or hear the matter contained in such materials.

    In the past, authors as well as publishers of artistic and literary works have been put to trial and punished under this section. In the present case, the appellant takes full responsibility for her statement which was published in `India Today’, a leading news magazine. It would be apt to refer back to the decision of this Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881, wherein it was held that if a mere reference to sex by itself is considered obscene, no books can be sold except those which are purely religious. It was observed that in the field of art and cinema, the adolescent is shown situations which even a quarter of a century ago would be considered derogatory to public morality, but having regard to changed conditions, the same are taken for granted without in any way tending to debase or debauch the mind. What is to be considered is whether a class of persons, not an isolated case, into whose hands the book, article or story falls will suffer in their moral outlook or become depraved by reading it or might have impure and lecherous thoughts 16

    aroused in their minds. Even though the decision in that case had upheld a conviction for the sale of a literary work, it became clear that references to sex cannot be considered obscene in the legal sense without examining the context of the reference.

    17. This position was later clarified in Samaresh Bose Vs. Amal Mitra, AIR 1986 SC 967, where the Court held that in judging the question of obscenity, the judge in the first place should try to place himself in the position of the author and from the viewpoint of the author, the judge should try to understand what is it that the author seeks to convey and whether what the author conveys has any literary and artistic value. Judge should thereafter place himself in the position of a reader of every age group in whose hands the book is likely to fall and should try to appreciate what kind of possible influence the book is likely to have on the minds of the reader.

    18. There are numerous other decisions, both from India and foreign country which mandate that `obscenity’ should be gauged with respect to contemporary community standards that reflect the sensibilities as well as the tolerance levels of an average reasonable person. Owing to the clear 17

    formulation on this issue it is not necessary for us to discuss these precedents at length. In the present case, the appellant has merely referred to the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex and called for its societal acceptance. At no point of time appellant described the sexual act or said anything that could arouse sexual desires in the mind of a reasonable and prudent reader. Furthermore, the statement has been made in the context of a survey which has touched on numerous aspects relating to the sexual habits of people in big cities. Even though this survey was not part of a literary or artistic work, it was published in a news magazine thereby serving the purpose of communicating certain ideas and opinions on the above- mentioned subject. In the long run, such communication prompts a dialogue within society wherein people can choose to either defend or question the existing social mores. It is difficult to appreciate the claim that the statements published as part of the survey were in the nature of obscene communications.

    19. We must also respond to the claim that the appellant’s remarks could have the effect of misguiding young people by encouraging them to indulge in premarital sex. This claim is a little far-fetched since the appellant had not 18

    directed her remarks towards any individual or group in particular. All that the appellant did was to urge the societal acceptance of the increasing instances of premarital sex when both partners are committed to each other. This cannot be construed as an open endorsement of sexual activities of all kinds. If it were to be considered so, the criminal law machinery would have to take on the unenforceable task of punishing all writers, journalists or other such persons for merely referring to any matter connected with sex in published materials. For the sake of argument, even if it were to be assumed that the appellant’s statements could encourage some people to engage in premarital sex, no legal injury has been shown since the latter is not an offence.

    20. "Offence" means `an act or instance of offending’; `commit an illegal act’ and illegal means, `contrary to or forbidden by law’.

    "Offence" has to be read and understood in the context as it has been prescribed under the provisions of Sections 40, 41 and 42 IPC which cover the offences punishable under I.P.C. or under special or local law or as defined under Section 2(n) Cr.P.C. or Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (vide Proprietary Articles Trade 19

    Association Vs. Attorney General for Canada AIR 1931 PC 94; Thomas Dana Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 375; Jawala Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Pepsu (now Punjab) & Ors. AIR 1962 SC 1246; and Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1301).

    21. While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting, with the exception of `adultery’ as defined under Section 497 IPC. At this juncture, we may refer to the decision given by this Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522, wherein it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with the obvious exception of `adultery’), even though it may be perceived as immoral. A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or "live with anyone she likes". In that case, the petitioner was a woman who had married a man belonging to another caste and had begun cohabitation with him. The petitioner’s brother had filed a criminal complaint accusing her husband of offences under Sections 366 and 368 IPC, thereby leading to the 20

    commencement of trial proceedings. This Court had entertained a writ petition and granted relief by quashing the criminal trial. Furthermore, the Court had noted that `no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court’.

    22. It would also be instructive to refer to a decision of the House of Lords (U.K.) in Gillick Vs. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority, (1985) 3 All ER 402. In that case, mother of a teenage girl had questioned the decision of the National Health Service (NHS) to issue a circular to local area health authorities which contained guidelines for rendering advice about contraceptive methods to girls under the age of 16 years. Objections were raised against this circular on the ground that the health service authorities had no competence to render such advice and that doing so could adversely affect young children while at the same time interfering with parental autonomy in the matter of bringing up children. The majority decision rejected the challenge against the circular by clarifying that the rendering of advice about contraceptive methods and their provision by medical professionals did not amount to a sexual offence. Among the several aspects discussed in 21

    that case, it was held that the provision of information about contraceptive facilities to girls under the age of 16 years could not be opposed on the ground that such information could potentially encourage more sexual activity by the teenagers. For the purpose of the present case, this decision supports the reasoning that we must fully understand the context and the purpose for which references to sex have been made in any given setting.

    23. We now turn to the question whether the appellant’s remarks could reasonably amount to offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC. In the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2008, the High Court observed that as to whether the appellant could claim a defence against the allegations of defamation was a factual question and thus would be decided by a trial Court. However, even before examining whether the appellant can claim any of the statutory defences in this regard, the operative question is whether the allegations in the impugned complaints support a prima facie case of defamation in the first place. It is our considered view that there is no prima facie case of defamation in the present case. This will become self- evident if we draw attention to the key ingredients of the 22

    offence contemplated by Section 499 IPC, which reads as follows:

    "499. Defamation.- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to

    harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

    Explanation 1. – It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the

    imputation would harm the reputation of that

    person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near

    relatives.

    Explanation 2. – It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an

    association or collection of persons as such.

    Explanation 3. – An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

    Explanation 4.- No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of

    others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state

    generally considered as disgraceful. …" (emphasis supplied)

    The definition makes it amply clear that the accused must either intend to harm the reputation of a particular person 23

    or reasonably know that his/her conduct could cause such harm. Explanation 2 to Section 499 further states that `It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.’

    24. With regard to the complaints in question, there is neither any intent on part of the appellant to cause harm to the reputation of the complainants nor can we discern any actual harm done to their reputation. In short, both the elements i.e. mens rea and actus reus are missing. As mentioned earlier, the appellant’s statement published in `India Today’ (in September 2005) is a rather general endorsement of premarital sex and her remarks are not directed at any individual or even at a `company or an association or collection of persons’. It is difficult to fathom how the appellant’s views can be construed as an attack on the reputation of anyone in particular. Even if we refer to the remarks published in `Dhina Thanthi’ (dated 24.9.2005) which have been categorically denied by the appellant, there is no direct attack on the reputation of anyone in particular. Instead, the purported remarks are in the nature of rhetorical questions wherein it was asked if people in Tamil Nadu were not aware of the incidence of 24

    sex. Even if we consider these remarks in their entirety, nowhere has it been suggested that all women in Tamil Nadu have engaged in premarital sex. That imputation can only be found in the complaints that were filed by the various respondents. It is a clear case of the complainants reading in too much into the appellant’s remarks.

    25. This takes us to the question of whether the impugned complaints were made in a bona fide manner. As we have already noted, most of the complainants are associated with the PMK, a political party which is active in the State of Tamil Nadu. This fact does add weight to the suggestion that the impugned complaints have been filed with the intention of gaining undue political mileage. It may be reiterated here that in respect of the offence of defamation, Section 199 Cr.PC mandates that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved. This limitation on the power to take cognizance of defamation serves the rational purpose of discouraging the filing of frivolous complaints which would otherwise clog the Magistrate’s Courts. There is of course some room for complaints to be brought by persons other than those who are aggrieved, for instance when the aggrieved person has passed away or is 25

    otherwise unable to initiate legal proceedings. However, in given facts of the present case, we are unable to see how the complainants can be properly described as `persons aggrieved’ within the meaning of Section 199(1)(b) Cr.PC. As explained earlier, there was no specific legal injury caused to any of the complainants since the appellant’s remarks were not directed at any individual or a readily identifiable group of people. In M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 552, this Court observed as under:

    "The `person aggrieved’ means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. `Person aggrieved’ means a person who is injured or one who is adversely affected in a legal sense."

    26. We can also approvingly refer to an earlier decision of this Court in G. Narasimhan & Ors. Vs. T.V. Chokappa, AIR 1972 SC 2609. In that case a controversy had arisen after `The Hindu’, a leading newspaper had published a report about a resolution passed by the Dravida Kazhagham, a political party, in its conference held on January 23-24, 1971. Among other issues, the resolution also included the following words:

    "It should not be made an offence for a person’s wife to desire another man."

    26

    The Hindu, in its report, gave publicity to this resolution by using the following words:

    "The Conference passed a resolution requesting the Government to take suitable steps to see that coveting another man’s wife is not made an

    offence under the Indian Penal Code."

    A complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC was filed in response to this report. Like the present case, the Court had to consider whether the complainant had the proper legal standing to bring such a complaint. The Court did examine Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (analogous to Section 199 of the Cr.PC. 1973) and observed that the said provision laid down an exception to the general rule that a criminal complaint can be filed by anyone irrespective of whether he is an "aggrieved person" or not. But there is a departure from this norm in so far as the provision permits only an "aggrieved person" to move the Court in case of defamation. This section is mandatory and it is a settled legal proposition that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an "aggrieved person", the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal. This Court further noted that the news-item in question did not mention any individual person nor did it contain any 27

    defamatory imputation against any individual. Accordingly, it was held that the complainant was not a `person aggrieved’ within the meaning of Section 198 CrPC, 1898. The Court also took note of Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC which contemplates defamation of `a company or an association or any collection of persons as such’. Undoubtedly, the explanation is wide but in order to demonstrate the offence of defamation, such a collection of persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with precision that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community stood defamed. In case the identity of the collection of persons is not established so as to be relatable to the defamatory words or imputations, the complaint is not maintainable. In case a class is mentioned, if such a class is indefinite, the complaint cannot be entertained. Furthermore, if it is not possible to ascertain the composition of such a class, the criminal prosecution cannot proceed.

    While deciding the case, this Court placed reliance on the judgment of the House of Lords in Knupffer Vs. London Express Newspaper Ltd. (1944) 1 ALL ER 495, wherein it had been held that it is an essential element of the cause of action for defamation that the words complained of should be published "of the complainant/plaintiff". Where he is 28

    not named, the test would be whether the words would reasonably lead people acquainted with him to the conclusion that he was the person referred to. In fact, it is the reputation of an individual person which must be in question and only such a person can claim to have "a legal peg for a justifiable claim to hang on".

    27. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the complainants have alleged defamation in respect of imputations against the character of Tamil-speaking women, which could perhaps be viewed as a class of persons. However, we have already explained, the appellant’s remarks did not suggest that all women in Tamil Nadu have engaged in premarital sex. In fact her statement in `India Today’ did not refer to any specific individual or group at all. If we refer to one of the questions asked as part of the concerned survey, one of the answers shows that 26% of the people who responded to the same did not think that it was necessary for women to retain their virginity till the time of marriage. Clearly the appellant was not alone in expressing such a view, even though it may be unpopular or contrary to the mainstream social practices. Even if it were assumed that the news-item carried in `Dhina Thanthi’ caused mental agony to some sections of women in Tamil 29

    Nadu, there is no prima facie case for any offence. What is interesting to note is that not all of the complainants are women, and in fact almost all the complainants are associated with a particular political party.

    28. We are of the view that the institution of the numerous criminal complaints against the appellant was done in a mala fide manner. In order to prevent the abuse of the criminal law machinery, we are therefore inclined to grant the relief sought by the appellant. In such cases, the proper course for Magistrates is to use their statutory powers to direct an investigation into the allegations before taking cognizance of the offences alleged. It is not the task of the criminal law to punish individuals merely for expressing unpopular views. The threshold for placing reasonable restrictions on the `freedom of speech and expression’ is indeed a very high one and there should be a presumption in favour of the accused in such cases. It is only when the complainants produce materials that support a prima facie case for a statutory offence that Magistrates can proceed to take cognizance of the same. We must be mindful that the initiation of a criminal trial is a process which carries an implicit degree of coercion and it 30

    should not be triggered by false and frivolous complaints, amounting to harassment and humiliation to the accused.

    29. Even though the constitutional freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions on grounds such as `decency and morality’ among others, we must lay stress on the need to tolerate unpopular views in the socio-cultural space. The framers of our Constitution recognised the importance of safeguarding this right since the free flow of opinions and ideas is essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry. While an informed citizenry is a pre-condition for meaningful governance in the political sense, we must also promote a culture of open dialogue when it comes to societal attitudes. Admittedly, the appellant’s remarks did provoke a controversy since the acceptance of premarital sex and live-in relationships is viewed by some as an attack on the centrality of marriage. While there can be no doubt that in India, marriage is an important social institution, we must also keep our minds open to the fact that there are certain individuals or groups who do not hold the same view. To be sure, there are some indigenous groups within our country wherein sexual relations outside the marital setting are accepted as a normal occurrence. 31

    Even in the societal mainstream, there are a significant number of people who see nothing wrong in engaging in premarital sex. Notions of social morality are inherently subjective and the criminal law cannot be used as a means to unduly interfere with the domain of personal autonomy. Morality and Criminality are not co-extensive. In the present case, the substance of the controversy does not really touch on whether premarital sex is socially acceptable. Instead, the real issue of concern is the disproportionate response to the appellant’s remarks. If the complainants vehemently disagreed with the appellant’s views, then they should have contested her views through the news media or any other public platform. The law should not be used in a manner that has chilling effects on the `freedom of speech and expression’. It would be apt to refer to the following observations made by this Court in S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 574, which spell out the appropriate approach for examining the scope of `reasonable restrictions’ under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution that can be placed on the freedom of speech and expression:-

    " … Our commitment of freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It should

    32

    have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a `spark in a powder keg’.

    The Court further held:

    " … The standard to be applied by the Board or courts for judging the film should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not that of an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man … The different views are allowed to be

    expressed by proponents and opponents not because they are correct, or valid but because there is freedom in this country for expressing even

    differing views on any issue. … Freedom of

    expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held to

    ransom by an intolerant group of people. The

    fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes

    mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience or expediency. Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting

    expression. We must practice tolerance of the

    views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself."

    30. Thus, dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is permissible under our constitutional scheme. The different views are allowed to be expressed by the proponents and opponents. A culture of responsible reading is to be inculcated amongst the prudent readers. Morality and criminality are far from being co-extensive. An expression of opinion in favour of non-dogmatic and non- 33

    conventional morality has to be tolerated as the same cannot be a ground to penalise the author.

    31. Before saying omega, it is necessary for us to point out certain unwarranted developments that have taken place ever since the matter was heard till date. In fact, during the course of hearing, certain queries were put to the learned counsel appearing for parties so as to clarify the legal issue involved in the matter but unfortunately, those queries have been highly misunderstood not only by media but also by common man. As a result thereof, we have been flooded with several letter petitions making a prayer for review of the order passed by us. It is pertinent to mention here that no order was passed by us and only during the course of hearing, we had either given some instances or put some questions to the learned counsel which were answered by them. Thus, this hyper active attitude of the common man was, indeed, not called for. Some have even gone to the extent of telling us that we should have known the Indian mythology before putting such question. Thus, whatever we have said during the course of the hearing should be reviewed. We fail to understand how such an attitude could be adopted by those learned persons who were involved in sending various letter petitions to us. 34

    Admittedly, all those persons who have sent letters to us were not present on that particular date but must have gathered information from the print and electronic media which evoked their sentiments to such an extent that they prayed for review.

    32. It is, therefore, not only desirable but imperative that electronic and news media should also play positive role in presenting to general public as to what actually transpires during the course of the hearing and it should not be published in such a manner so as to get unnecessary publicity for its own paper or news channel. Such a tendency, which is indeed growing fast, should be stopped. We are saying so as without knowing the reference in context of which the questions were put forth by us, were completely ignored and the same were misquoted which raised unnecessary hue and cry.

    33. We hope and trust in future, they would be little more careful, responsible and cautious in this regard.

    34. In conclusion, we find that the various complaints filed against the appellant do not support or even draw a prima facie case for any of the statutory offences as alleged. Therefore, the appeals are allowed and the 35

    impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 30.4.2008 is set aside. The impugned criminal proceedings are hereby quashed.

    ……………………….CJI.

    ……………………….. J.

    (DEEPAK VERMA)

    ……………………….. J.

    (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

    New Delhi

    April 28, 2010

    36

    • M. K. Mahalakshmi Says:

      குஷ்பு பேசியதற்காக இல்லாமல், அதற்கு போதிய ஆதாரங்கள் இல்லை அல்லது குஷ்புவிற்கு சரியான முறையில் வழக்காடவில்லை என்ற நிலையில் தான் விடுவிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறார்.

      அரசியல் அல்லது மற்ற விஷயங்களால், மறு பரிசீலினை, மேல்முறையீடு செய்யப்படவில்லை என்று நன்றாகவே தெரிகிறது.

      மேலும், நீதிபதியே திமுக-திக ஆதரவாளர், குஷ்புவோ அவர்களுக்கு வ்டேண்டியவர், நெருக்கமானவர், பிறகு சட்டம், நீதி என்ன செய்யும்?

      பராசக்தியில் அம்மன் சன்னிதியில் “டயலாக்” பேசிய மாதிரி, இன்று, குஷ்பு சன்னிதியில் பேச வேண்டியதுதான்!

      அவருக்கு இரண்டு பெண்கள் இருக்கிறார்கள், ஆண்டவன் புண்ணியத்தில், இல்லை, அம்மணி கண்கணிப்பால் அவர்கள் நன்றாக வளர்ந்து தமிழகத்தைக் காப்பாற்ற வேண்டும்.

  3. M. K. Mahalakshmi Says:

    பொறுப்புள்ள பெற்றோர் வரும் தமது மகள்களை இவ்வாறு நடந்து கொள்ள அனுமதிக்க மாட்டார்கள்.

    மேனாட்டு கலாச்சாரத்தைப் பின்பற்றும், நாகரிகமிக்க, பணக்கார பெற்றோர் சிலர் இவ்வாறு தமது பெண்களைக் கவனிக்காமல், கண்டிக்காமல் விட்டுவிடுவதால், அவர்கள் இப்படி அலைந்து, திரிந்து நாசமாகிறார்கள்.

    சொன்னாலும், அவர்கள் அதனை ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளமாற்றார்கள். இருப்பினும் சொல்ல வேண்டியவர்கள் சொல்லித்தான் ஆகவேண்டும்.

    இந்தியாவை விட்டு அவர்கள் தங்களுக்கு ஏற்றா நாட்டைத் தேர்ந்தெடுத்து அங்கேயே, அவர்கள் தாராளமாக, சுதந்திரமாக இருந்து கொள்ளலாம்.

    ஆனால், இந்தியாவிலேயே தங்கியிருந்து அவ்வாறு செய்வதால் தான், அவர்களின் மீது சந்தேகம் எழுகிறது.

    ஒரு விதத்தில் இதுவும் தீவிரவாதம், பயங்கரவாதம் தான்.

    ஆனால், இதனை எப்படி தடுப்பது, போக்குவது, பாதுகாத்துக் கொள்வது?

  4. கள்ளக்காதல், கொலை, கைது – சீரழும் இல்லற வாழ்க்கை, சோரம் போகும் பெண்மை, துன்பத்தில் குடும்பங்கள் Says:

    […] [3] https://womanissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/khusboo-again-comes-to-deliberate-on-sex-age-rape-etc/ […]

  5. ஐந்து மும்பை நடிகைகள் சொகுசு விபச்சாரம் – கையும், களவுமாக கைது! | பெண்களின் நிலை Says:

    […] [12] https://womanissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/khusboo-again-comes-to-deliberate-on-sex-age-rape-etc/ […]

  6. நடிகைகள் விபச்சாரத்தைப் பற்றி பேசும் போது குஷ்பு கொதிப்பது, குதிப்பது, வசைப் பாடுவது ஏன்? | சின Says:

    […] [7] https://womanissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/khusboo-again-comes-to-deliberate-on-sex-age-rape-etc/ […]

  7. குஷ்புவிடம் ஒழுக்கத்தை கற்றுக் கொள்ளுங்கள் – நடிகையப் பரிந்துரைக்கும் நடிக சங்கத் தலைவர் – Says:

    […] [8] https://womanissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/khusboo-again-comes-to-deliberate-on-sex-age-rape-etc/ […]

  8. குஷ்புவிடம் ஒழுக்கத்தை கற்றுக் கொள்ளுங்கள் – நடிகையப் பரிந்துரைக்கும் நடிக சங்கத் தலைவர் – Says:

    […] [8] https://womanissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/khusboo-again-comes-to-deliberate-on-sex-age-rape-etc/ […]

மறுமொழியொன்றை இடுங்கள்

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: