Mumbai Court discharges Shilpa Shetty in Richard Gere kissing case, upholds previous judgment clearing her of obscenity charges – Times of India

Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty were on stage for an AIDS Awareness event in 2007 and the Hollywood heartthrob had planted a kiss on Shilpa’s cheek to show that a simple kiss cannot lead to the spread of an HIV infection. But the gesture backfired as a case was registered by a complainant named Bhupsinh against Shilpa Shetty and Richard Gere at Alwar police station in Rajasthan. The offence was registered under the IT Act and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act of the IPC. Reportedly, the complainant had found Gere and Shetty’s well-meaning gesture obscene.
The complainant had based his complaint on the observation that Shilpa Shetty was aware that event was a public one, that it was being covered extensively by the media, that it would be televised and yet, when Gere decided to plant a kiss on her cheek, she did not resist and thereby was complicit to an obscene act.

After the complaint was filed at Alwar police station the primary respondent, Shilpa Shetty moved the Supreme Court to transfer the matter to Mumbai. The Metropolitan Court 16 discharged Shilpa Shetty in the case in the year 2021.
The State of Maharashtra then filed an appeal against the order of discharge against Shilpa Shetty. Shilpa was represented by advocate Prashant Patil. After detailed arguments the Honourable Court passed a detailed order wherein the Honourable Judge Smt SC Jadhav noted that there was nothing wrong in the order passed by the Metropolitan Court No 16, discharging Shilpa Shetty from the obscenity case.

The metropolitan magistrate had relied upon the Supreme Court order in the Aveek Sarkar case wherein the SC had laid down the definition of obscenity. The Honourable Judge noted that in the Aveek Sarkar case, which was based on tennis player Boris Becker’s semi-nude photo with his then girlfriend Barbara Feltus, it could not be adjudged that the photo was obscene and the publication that printed it was indulging in promoting obscenity. Likewise, in Shilpa Shetty’s case there was no conclusive evidence to prove that she was complicit to an obscene act or the fact that she was involved in an activity worthy of being judged under the Indecent Representation Of Women Act.

The way the court reasoned Shilpa Shetty’s diacharge was that she was a victim to Richard Gere’s act of kissing. Further the judge noted that, “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 Court acknowledged that just because Shilpa Shetty did not stop Gere from kissing her, does not make her complicit to any illegal activity.

The Court further reasoned that obscenity has to be to understood with the background of the alleged act and it can vary from situation to situation and person to person.

In the case of Shilpa Shetty and Richard Gere’s kissing scenario, the Court deemed that there was no case of obscenity.