4 min readNew DelhiMar 19, 2026 02:13 PM ISTKerala High Court quashed criminal case against Menon. (File photo)While quashing criminal proceedings against Malayalam actress Shwetha Menon in an obscenity case, the Kerala High Court observed that the empowerment of women does not mean that they should be made saints, but it entails recognising their individuality, aspirations and accomplishments with dignity and fairness.Justice C S Dias allowed the plea filed by Menon and quashed the case registered against her under Sections 3 (keeping brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel) and 5 (procuring, inducing or taking person for prostitution) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 67 (A) (publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.“Progressive societies evaluate people on the basis of their actions and contributions; regressive societies resort to slander, character assassination and moral policing. The empowerment of women does not mean that they should be made saints, but recognising their individuality, aspirations and accomplishments with dignity and fairness,” the court said.It also noted that social shaming is often weaponised against women who achieve name and fame.“It is often said that when a woman attains name, fame, and recognition in public life, attempts to defeat her on the basis of reasons, logic, or merit may turn difficult. Then, social shaming is the frequently deployed weapon,” the order read.It added that when a society focuses more on a woman’s image than her achievements, it exposes its own intellectual poverty.‘Vague and bald allegation’Upon a careful examination of the allegations in the complaint, this Court finds that there is not a whisper in the complaint suggesting that the petitioner is running a brothel or allowing her premises to be used as a brothel, or is procuring, inducing or taking any person for prostitution.The complaint only contains a vague and bald allegation that the petitioner is involved in ‘sex marketing’. Such a sweeping and unsubstantiated allegation, devoid of any material or prima facie proof, is insufficient to attract the above offences under the ITP Act.There are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioner has published or transmitted in electronic form any material that contains a sexually explicit act. The only bald allegation is that, it is with the petitioner’s knowledge, consent and participation that some pornography sites are functioning; there is not a scrap of paper to prima facie prove the wild and reckless imputation.After carefully analysing the allegations in the complaint, the FIR, the materials on record and the law on the point, I am convinced that if the allegations in the complaint and the FIR are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner, and the prosecution has been lodged by the second respondent with the ulterior motive of tarnishing the name and reputation of the petitioner.What was the case?The complainant, who claimed to be a social worker and journalist, alleged that the actor acts in a vulgar and nude manner in films and advertisements, and uploads such content on pornographic websites and social media platforms, projecting herself as a porn star for financial gain.It was alleged that she also circulates pornographic videos involving minor girls, participates in sex marketing, and provides contact numbers to lure customers.The complainant alleged that there was an organised network that operated the online content, with the knowledge, consent, and participation of the actor and that her actions were destroying the society.The actor approached the high court seeking quashing of the case.The counsel for the actor contended that the complaint was frivolous and a malicious litigation was filed with an oblique intention of preventing her from contesting the election to the post of president of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists.It was further argued that the actor had earned a good name and reputation in the Society and leads a happy family life and that the complaint did not contain the rudimentary ingredients to attract the offences alleged.Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Kerala High Court