Moral Policing Women Violative Of Article 21, Contributes To Social Ostracisation And Even Suicide: Madras High Court

Justice L. Victorial Gowri added that the courts could not be oblivious to the dangers of moral policing, as these practices often lead to social ostracisation of women and sometimes even drives them to commit suicide.

“However, this Court cannot be oblivious to the dangerous and regressive practice of moral policing, which has no sanction in law. In fact, the Supreme Court has condemned acts of self-appointed vigilantes interfering with personal liberties (Shakti Vahini v. Union of India3). Women, particularly in rural societies, are the worst victims of such vigilante acts. Such behaviour not only infringes Article 21 of the Constitution—guaranteeing dignity and liberty —but also contributes to social ostracisation and, in cases like the present one, pushes victims towards tragic ends,” the court said.

The court highlighted that the dignity of women is protected by way of Article 21 of the Constitution, and any act of moral policing, particularly targeting women, would be a direct assault on this constitutional guarantee.

The court also noted that even as per international conventions like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), it has to be ensured that women are not subjected to gender-based violence and that every individual is protected against arbitrary interference with privacy, honour, and reputation.

The court noted that these international obligations, along with the constitutional mandate, reinforce that women must be safeguarded from vigilante actions that tarnish their dignity and compromise their fundamental rights.

The court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Theni, refusing to cancel the bail of a man accused of locking the deceased's house from outside while she was inside, conversing with another man, while her husband was away on work. This gave rise to rumours of an illicit relationship between the deceased and the man, which disgraced the deceased in the eyes of the villagers and eventually drove her to commit suicide.

Though the accused was arrested, he was eventually enlarged on bail within 8 days. Aggrieved, the defacto complainant, who was the mother of the deceased, filed an application to cancel the bail. This application was rejected and she approached the High Court.

The state informed that the accused had been charged with offences under Sections 127(2) [wrongful confinement], 296(b) [obscene acts and songs], and 108 [abetment of suicide] of the BNS. It was submitted that the accused had undergone eight days of judicial custody and the trial court had rightly exercised discretion in granting bail.

The accused also submitted that he was complying with all the bail conditions and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty. It was also submitted that bail once granted should not be cancelled mechanically unless there were other supervening circumstances.

While the court did not find any infirmity with the order of the trial judge, it opined that the conditions of bail had to be strengthened and strictly monitored. It noted that this approach would balance the rights of the accused under Article 21 with the social interest in preventing misuse of bail and deterring moral policing.

The court thus directed that the condition of requiring the accused to appear before the police twice daily would continue further for one year. It remarked that this prolonged compliance was to instill discipline and to serve as a deterrent against further acts of moral policing.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. J. Yogeswaran

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side), Mr.D.Saravanan

Case Title: Navanitha v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 349

Case No: Crl. R. C.(MD)No.582 of 2025