Bar&Bench News Network
South Indian film actress, Khushboo’s troubles over her infamous ‘pre-marital sex’ comment seems to have finally ended. Khushboo had, in an interview to society magazine, Marie Claire, had said, "No educated man would expect his (bride) to be a virgin.” This comment had sparked outrage in parts of Southern India, specifically Tamil Nadu. Some political leaders from PMK had filed criminal complaints against Khushboo on the ground that she had endorsed pre-marital sex and it amounted to ‘public nuisance’. After the Madras High Court ruled against quashing of criminal complaints filed against her, the actress had moved the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, and Justices Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan reacting strongly against the criminal complaints and reserved its judgement on the Special Leave Petition.
The Bench questioned the respondents, “How does it concern you? We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law? When two adult people want to live together what is the offence? Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence.” “Even Hindu gods Lord Krishna and Radha were co-habiting lovers,” they added.
Senior Counsel Pinky Anand appeared on behalf of the actress who has a temple dedicated to her in Tamil Nadu. Anand was briefed by advocates, Ankur Mittal and Karthikeyan. Speaking to Bar & Bench, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand said, “Freedom of speech and expression is the right of every citizen and I believe that absurd allegations cannot take this right from any citizen”.
In the last five years, Khushboo has had to defend nearly 22 criminal complaints filed against her. This is not the end for politicians filing criminal complaints for political mileage or for upholding the moral values of our society. This saga will continue even after Supreme Court finds newer and harsher solution to address such complaints.
Reference: S.Khushboo vs. V.G. Kathikeyan, SLP (Crim) 7052 / 2008
|
 |
- 1. "1) every citizen of india has got the right of freedom of speech and expressions given under artile 19, with certain exceptions stated therein. Further No body can be punished if the statement does not amount to an offence under any existing law. 2)non- following of the morality does not amount to an offence, as morality and legality are the two differnet things.stating that the "pre-marital sex is justifiable" is a personal opinion, and giving personal opinion is provided under Article 19 of constitution of India, neither this statement is falling in any of the limitation prescribed over there in Art. 19 nor the statement amounts to an offence under any existing law of India. However, it may amount to immorality considering the culture of India, but absolutely it does not amount to an offece.Hence statement of Khushbu is a personal opinion, as hold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Adv. Shahid Ansari.Bombay High Court.Cell. 93 25 14 32 87". ADV. SHAHID ANSARI, Mumbai.
- 2. "Without getting into the merits of the order and arguments for, I wonder under what provisions then the actress will be guilty of. Since the dismissal is on technical grounds, do we lack a proper mechanism to bring those guilty of affcting public sentiments at large to books? No doubt the actress statement inflicts wounds on the sentiments of people, if it is not libel or slander what it is? - Ashok Harur.". Ashok, New Delhi
Related Stories
- David Becker and Iain Higgins for ICC and Justice Anand and Goolam Vahanvati for the BCCI
- Anand & Anand notches yet another copyright victory for T-Series
- Anand & Anand secure GI certificate for Tirumala Laddu
- IP Matters: Brain League secures GI Tag for Mangoes; Tirumala Laddu GI Certification in Supreme Court
- Anand & Anand persuades Delhi HC to invoke 'John Doe' principle in Ray-Ban trademark matter
- Does Sandero sound like Santro? Anand & Anand represent Hyundai against Mahindra-Renault in Delhi HC
- Senior Counsel DJ Khambatta secures SEBI position before SAT in Shankar Sharma matter
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)
Webmasters: AIKYA