The High Court of Delhi, in a significant ruling on the interpretation of Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has held that while the use of a sexually coloured and derogatory term like “R***i” against a woman prima facie constitutes an offence of insulting modesty, generic abuses such as “s**li” do not meet the legal threshold for the same offence.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while hearing a petition filed by a school’s Vice-Principal challenging the discharge of three of her colleagues by a Metropolitan Magistrate, a decision which was later upheld by a Sessions Court. The High Court modified the lower court orders, directing one of the accused to face trial under Section 509 IPC while upholding the discharge of the other two.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered on the complaint of Ms. Shashi Bala, the Vice-Principal of a school in Delhi. According to the FIR, on July 5, 2013, she discovered that her attendance record had been mutilated with red ink. Upon approaching the Principal’s office, she was allegedly confronted by the Principal, Mr. K.P.S. Malik, and three other staff members: Mr. Hari Kishan (respondent no. 2), Mr. Anand Kumar (respondent no. 3), and Mr. Rajinder Kumar (respondent no. 4).
The complainant alleged that the Principal used abusive language and attempted to assault her. She further alleged that Mr. Hari Kishan made “shameful gestures and obscene remarks,” Mr. Anand Kumar used “indecent language,” and Mr. Rajinder Kumar tried to “overpower her.” Following an initial delay, an FIR was registered on July 21, 2013, for the offence under Section 509 of the IPC.
After investigation, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges only against the Principal, Mr. K.P.S. Malik, and discharged the other three respondents on January 23, 2017. The Magistrate noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, pointing out that the names of the three discharged persons were not mentioned in her first two complaints made on the day of the incident. This order was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on November 1, 2018, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
The petitioner’s counsel argued that specific allegations against all accused were made in her complaint dated July 21, 2013, and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). It was contended that any contradictions were a matter for trial and could not be grounds for discharge.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had concocted a false version sixteen days after the incident. They submitted that the initial complaints were silent about their presence and that even the subsequent allegations were general, without specifying words that could be construed as insulting the modesty of a woman under Section 509 IPC.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma began by noting that while the first two complaints dated July 5, 2013, did not name the respondents, a subsequent complaint filed the very next day, on July 6, 2013, did name them and allege their participation. Therefore, their discharge could not be based solely on the initial omission.
The Court then proceeded to examine the core issue: whether the specific allegations, even if taken at face value, fulfilled the essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC. The judgment delved into the legal meaning of “modesty,” referring to landmark Supreme Court decisions. Citing Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex and sexual dignity. The ultimate test, as laid down in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, is whether the offender’s action “is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.”
Applying this test to the specific allegations, the Court analyzed the conduct attributed to each respondent:
- Against Anand Kumar (Respondent no. 3) and Rajinder Kumar (Respondent no. 4): The petitioner alleged that Anand Kumar called her “s**li” and said she was “talking rubbish.” Rajinder Kumar also allegedly called her “s**li” and threatened her career. The Court found that these words, while condemnable, did not meet the threshold of Section 509 IPC. The judgment states, “The abuses allegedly uttered by respondents Anand and Rajinder, although condemnable if true, cannot in themselves be construed as intended to outrage the modesty of the petitioner. They are in the nature of generic abuses which, at best, amount to use of derogatory language, but lack the sexual connotation or suggestive element required to bring them within the ambit of Section 509 of IPC.”
- Against Hari Kishan (Respondent no. 2): The petitioner specifically alleged that Hari Kishan called her “R***i” and hurled other abuses. The Court found this allegation to be fundamentally different. It observed, “In this Court’s opinion, the use of such an expression cannot be regarded as a mere abuse or a casual insult. The word, when directed towards a woman, is laden with sexual innuendo and directly imputes unchastity to her. It is not a casual term of abuse but one which specifically attacks a woman’s character by questioning her sexual dignity and portraying her as of loose moral character.”
The Court concluded that such a term prima facie falls within the ambit of an offence under Section 509 IPC.
Final Decision
Based on this analysis, the High Court modified the orders of the trial court and the Sessions Court. The discharge of respondent no. 3, Anand Kumar, and respondent no. 4, Rajinder Kumar, was upheld.
However, the Court set aside the discharge of respondent no. 2, Hari Kishan, holding that there was sufficient material to frame a charge against him under Section 509 IPC. The judgment clarified, “Whether in the given facts and circumstances, such expression actually resulted in outraging the modesty of the petitioner, is however a matter of trial.”
The petition was disposed of with the direction that the trial court proceed accordingly.
