Insulting A Woman Or Not Behaving With Her In A Chivalrous Manner Won’t Amount To ‘Outraging Her Modesty’: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that insulting a woman, being rude to her and not behaving with her in a chivalrous manner, as she would expect one to behave, will not be covered under the definition of “outraging the modesty of a woman” as per Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“The Courts will also have to consider, while adjudicating the cases of Section 509 IPC, the background of the complainant before it, as that can also guide the Courts in deciding as to what the complainant in a case, in given circumstances, would have interpreted or would the complainant's modesty with those words could be said to be outraged,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The court made the observations while setting aside a trial court order that framed charges against a man under Section 509 of IPC for using “vulgar language” against a woman employee by calling her “gandi aurat.” The man was her boss.

Granting relief to the man, the court observed that the word “Gandi Aurat”, read without context or any preceding or succeeding words indicating intent to outrage modesty of a woman, will not bring the said words within the ambit of Section 509 of the Code.

“Had there been any mention of any other words used, context given or any other gesture etc. made accompanying, succeeding or preceding these words, reflecting criminal intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, the outcome of the case would have been different,” the court said.

It noted that the reaction of a woman to a word or gesture will differ and thus, courts will have to consider the peculiar circumstances of a case to invoke the offence against an individual.

Justice Sharma also said that the words “Gandi Aurat‟ can mean different things to different people and in such cases, courts will have to apply the test of a “reasonable person's reaction” to determine the impact and intent behind the words or gestures.

Furthermore, it was observed that the words “Gandi Aurat”, which translate to “dirty woman”, do not have the potential to elicit a strong feeling of shock in a reasonable person, whether male or female.

“The term 'outrage' implies a profound emotional response, often associated with a feeling of shock. In this context, the words used, 'Gandi Aurat,' while certainly impolite and offensive, do not rise to the level of criminal intent driven words that would typically provoke shock in a woman so as to be covered in the definition of criminal offence under Section 509 of IPC. It is essential to consider the threshold of emotional response that is required for an act to be considered as an outrage,” the court observed.

It also said a “delicate balance” must be struck by courts while construing the intention of an accused in cases of outraging the modesty of a woman and that it is not appropriate to automatically presume the existence of such intention without thoroughly considering the multifaceted factors.

“Crucially, the interpretation of what constitutes an outrage to modesty can be context-specific, as it depends on societal norms, cultural values, and individual perspectives. What may be considered an affront to one person's sense of modesty might not be the same for another. Therefore, legal systems often rely on objective standards to evaluate these violations, taking into account the reasonable person's reaction in a given situation,” the court said.

Justice Sharma noted that the complainant woman and the man were in the capacity of employee and superior officer respectively and the former was neither attending the meetings nor coming to office on time nor complying with any of her duties as she was required to do, the court said.

“There is no mention apart from a single word that the accused had called her dirty woman, since they were having dispute which is apparent from a number of e-mails shared by them wherein he be being her boss and continuously asking her to attend meetings and office,” the court said.

It added even if the allegations against the man were taken at their face value, the same do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged. The court said that the proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on him and thus, they were liable to be set aside.

Advocates K.C. Mittal, Yugansh Mittal and Vaibhav Yadav appeared for the petitioner. APP Manoj Pant represented the State.

Case Title: VARUN BHATIA v. STATE AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 761

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment