KOCHI: Last evening, the Ernakulam First Class Judicial Magistrate Court denied businessman Boby Chemmanur aka ‘BoChe’ bail, and remanded him for 14 days. He had been taken into custody by a special investigation team (SIT) of the police on Wednesday, after actor Honey Rose alleged that he had repeatedly made “sexually coloured remarks” against her.
In her complaint, Honey outlined how Boby had targeted her on various occasions. The actor stated that on August 7 last year, during the inaugural function of Chemmanur International Jewellers showroom in Alakode, Kannur, the tycoon had made a series of inappropriate gestures and remarks against her.
She described how, in front of thousands of people, he placed a necklace around her neck, held her hand, and swirled it while passing a double entendre, suggesting the audience take a look at both “the front and back” of the necklace. Furthermore, he compared her to ‘Kunti Devi’, again an alleged double entendre referring to her body.
“He had made several comments with double meaning. I was being stalked and targeted repeatedly and my silence might have given the wrong impression that I am enjoying this… I should have reacted much earlier,” Honey said.
The actor also alleged that several other individuals had posted obscene and derogatory comments under social media posts related to her. She submitted screenshots of such comments to the police, following which the Ernakulam Central Police registered cases against at least 27 people.
The actor’s “war” against online harassment saw Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, too, reportedly call her and assure support. And police action was swift. Will this case serve as a deterrent for social media rogues?
“There has indeed been a sudden change in the nature of social media comments,” says actor Mala Parvathy. “Over the past two days, the tone has changed. I hope this mellowing isn’t temporary. If more people start reporting such remarks, we could see a much-needed social correction. Kerala society still has individuals who support abusers.”
Indeed. Some blame the way the Honey dresses. “Clothing is never an invitation to intrude on one’s privacy or harass,” says Dinu Veyil, a research scholar and activist. “Barbs over ‘provocative clothing’ stem from patriarchal views that lead to victim-blaming.”
Dinu also flags the “normalisation” of rape jokes, sexual innuendos, and the belief that such actions should be dismissed as harmless.
Activists also point to the role of online media channels, which often sensationalise women’s images with sexual innuendos, and misleading titles as clickbait to generate views. These videos, often filmed from questionable angles, usually attract a flood of derogatory comments about the woman’s body and character.
‘Commenting on physique can amount to sexual harassment’
Notably, the Kerala High Court on Monday observed that making sexually coloured remarks about a woman’s “body structure” could amount to a penal offence of “sexual harassment and insulting a woman’s modesty”. The court was hearing a case where a KSEB employee had accused a man of terming her physique as “fine” and also sending her lewd messages.
Sandhya J, a lawyer and secretary of Sakhi Women’s Resource Centre in Thiruvananthapuram, believes the court’s observation highlights a “significant shift.”
“Earlier, sexually coloured remarks and double entendres were often dismissed or ignored. Now, gradually we see a change in the way people respond. Anything with a sexual connotation that causes embarrassment is an offence, and calls for penalising,” she adds.
Now comes the big question: will police action be as efficient as it was in the case of Honey had the complainant were from the commonfolk?
Unlikely, says Sandhya. “Many ordinary people, especially women, suffer in silence. There are countless women enduring such online harassment,” she notes.
“Despite numerous women reporting cybercrimes, there is little progress in holding offenders accountable. In some cases, obscene videos or lewd remarks continue to remain online even after being reported.”
Writer Kavitha (name changed) lambasts the system as she recalls her case, where her photos were misused online two years ago. The police allegedly tried to discourage her from filing a case. “The first thing they asked me was why my profile had not been locked,” she says.
Kavitha adds that an officer recently asked her to withdraw the case, as the investigation had stalled. “Only when the issue is high-profile, or when the complainant is powerful and influential, does the police take such cases seriously,” she sighs.
‘Police force overwhelmed’
One of the primary reasons for this is the systemic challenge in addressing such complaints, says Cyber Suraksha Foundation founder Jiyas Jamal. “This is why many dare to post lewd remarks with a sense of impunity. They are confident of going scot-free by just deactivating the account.”
Jiyas adds that it would be unfair to pummel the police. “Handling such cases while there is already an overwhelming caseload can be taxing. So, in most instances, the complainants are advised to just block the accused’s profile,” he says.
“Moreover, delays in cooperation from social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube hinder investigations. These platforms take significant time to provide data, making it challenging to trace fake accounts.”
A cyber cell officer concurs. “Whenever a complaint is filed, it is treated with due seriousness. However, in many cases, complainants are reluctant to pursue legal proceedings. They often prefer to have the comment or video removed,” he adds.
“Dealing with fake profile cases is particularly challenging, as we have an already heavy workload. The state is backwards in terms of the man-police ratio.”
It is clear that despite the legal framework, the systemic and procedural challenges indicate that there is a long way to go in providing justice to victims of cyber harassment.
As the issue boils down to effective enforcement of laws and creating strong deterrence, it would be prudent for the government to ensure the police have sufficient personnel and resources to tackle online crimes. After all, we are in an e-yug.
How to take on cyber harassment
Lawyer Jiyas Jamal, who heads the Cyber Suraksha Foundation, underscores that many victims are unaware of the right legal steps to tackle online harassment.
“If remarks or actions are posted on social media, it is crucial to preserve the URLs,” he says.
“This ensures the evidence remains intact even if the accused denies the allegations. Screenshots of the content, account details, and other identifiers, such as contact or bank information, are also vital pieces of evidence.” Jiyas also highlights the channels for filing complaints.
Victims can report incidents online via the Kerala Police website (thuna.keralapolice.gov.in), the POL app, the toll-free number 1930, or cybercrime.gov.in.
“If there is no action after filing a complaint, victims can escalate the matter to higher authorities such as the commissioner or the superintendent of police. In cases of continued inaction, a private complaint can be filed with the magistrate court,” he adds.