No proof of obscenity against Shilpa Shetty: Mumbai court discharges actress in Richard Gere kissing case

“A woman who is groped on the street is a victim and cannot be termed an accused,” maintained a Mumbai court, discharging actress Shilpa Shetty in an obscenity case that was registered against her in 2007, after Hollywood star Richard Gere kissed her on stage during an AIDS awareness event in Rajasthan.  

He apparently planted a kiss on the Bollywood diva’s cheek “to show that a simple kiss cannot lead to the spread of an HIV infection”. However, the gesture did not go down well with many and a case was registered against Richard and Shilpa after a complaint was filed by a certain Bhupsinh, as he found it “obscene”. The complaint was filed before a Judicial Magistrate First Class in Mundawar, and the offence was registered under the IT Act and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act of the IPC. The incident was widely covered by the media. 

According to the complainant, even though Shilpa was aware that it was a public event, she did not resist when Richard decided to plant a kiss on her cheek and, thereby, was complicit in an obscene act. Shilpa later moved the Supreme Court to transfer the matter to Mumbai. The Metropolitan Court 16 discharged the actress in 2021. Following which, the State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the order of discharge against Shilpa. Shilpa was represented by advocate Prashant Patil. 

After detailed arguments the Honourable Court passed a detailed order, in which Sessions judge SC Jadhav noted that there was nothing wrong in the order passed by the Metropolitan Court No 16, discharging Shilpa from the obscenity case. For this, the magistrate relied on the Supreme Court order in the Aveek Sarkar case, in which the Apex court had laid down the definition of obscenity. 

“A woman being groped on the street or touched on a public way or in public transport cannot be termed as accused or participative to an extent of mental culpability and she cannot be held for illegal omission to make her liable for prosecution,” the judge said.