Why the law can't prohibit women from participating in beauty pageants
We have come a long way from the days when we used to be a proud nation of beauty queens. Close to two decades ago, a sense of insecurity made us claim that Indian women were physically the most beautiful in the world. A basis to this hyperbole existed. Indian women had received high honours at several international beauty pageants. Amitabh Bachchan sensed a commercial opportunity attempted to bring the Miss World beauty pageant to Bangalore in 1996 through his company, ABCL. However shortly after a press conference announced it, the Mahila Jagran Manch approached the Karanataka High Court. It sought the Court to pass orders, directing the State Government to prevent the Miss World pageant from being organised in Karanataka.
The Mahila Jagran Manch, though it fashioned itself as a women's rights organisation, omitted to make arguments against the physical form of female beauty encouraged by such competitions. It did not argue against patriarchy in the High Court. Instead, it sought to further it. Aggrieved by any possible nudity, it claimed the pageant was against "Indian culture and heritage" and would lead to the "AIDS virus". Though a Division Bench of the High Court was not amused by these claims, it still granted extraordinary indulgence.
The judgement of the High Court contained polite references to the constitutional rights to speech and expression, but the ultimate finding contained stringent directions to ABCL and the State Government. Thankfully, the Supreme Court overturned this decision shortly thereafter. It noted, that even though the competition had already been held, and the issue was academic, a detailed judgement was necessary, "so that in future the Court may not be swayed". This is a departure from practice as the Supreme Court rarely engages in academic arguments when the dispute itself has ceased to exist. It rebuked the High Court stating that it was, "distressed" that such a petition was even entertained. Going on the Supreme Court held that, "there can be two views on the question whether such a show is desirable or not. Some may consider it indecent, others not." It indicated that it was outside the jurisdiction of a court hearing a public interest litigation to adjudicate on personal taste.
A precedent was set. Taking caution from it, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad hearing an appeal in 1998, set aside the directions given by a single judge against the "Miss Andhra Popularity Contest". It noted that no authority existed with the single judge to impose any conditions in a writ petition against the beauty pageant. However, all this legal authority seems to have been ignored by the Madras High Court last week. The Court, while hearing the writ petition of Mrs Lakshmi Suresh v. Dr M Sekar (Writ Petition No. 21885/2013), by its Order, directed a complete prohibition on all beauty pageants organised in educational institutions. This interim direction on its very face appears to revolt against established legal precedent as explained above.
Even if it is presumed that an ignorance of the law is an excuse, the facts itself disentitle the Petitioner from seeking any such remedies and the court from injecting its own concern in a purely private dispute. The principal grievance of the Petitioner in the Madras High Court arise from the participation of her daughter in a beauty pageant in a college fest in which she was not given a promised cash prize and bundled off with a forged appreciation certificate. Alleging this as a form of harassment, the petitioner sought a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs in a writ petition. Such private disputes are properly to be dealt with a civil suit or if any criminality is involved, then through the registration of a FIR. There arises no occasion for the extraordinary writ remedies of the High Court to be invoked. Such remedies have been sparingly used by courts for compensation even in habeas corpus petitions, where people have been illegally detained without cause or even killed by security agencies.
Worse, even when not specifically in issue in the case itself, the court's interim direction appears suo motu. It has injected its own social concern into a writ petition limited to seeking monetary compensation. This presents an egregious illustration of judicial overreach. The Order, as has been reported extensively, seeks to question the rationale of a beauty pageant in an engineering college. Even though plausible explanations may be offered, one has to wonder if this is the proper role of a court. To gauge the appropriateness of cultural fests carried out in institutions of higher learning and to frame the education policy of the State Government without a clear statutory or constitutional basis for its directions.
While continuing censure against beauty pageants is necessary, such arguments need to be reasoned on the touchstones of a woman's autonomy. It has to be stressed that beauty pageants do lead to objectification, however it is not in the province of law to prohibit women from participating in it. It should be considered, that the larger battle against patriarchy must not be fought with legal bans and prohibitions for they are often premised on an amorphous Indian culture which further seeks to control and limit the choices and conduct of women. If we truthfully believe that Indian women are beautiful, we have to restrain any paternal instincts from interfering in their inherent liberty to express it. Our Supreme Court has said as much about twenty years ago, all the Madras High Court has to do is follow precedent.