The Supreme Court has said that a senior’s reprimand at the workplace does not constitute an “intentional insult,” and thus does not warrant criminal proceedings. This ruling aims to preserve the necessary disciplinary atmosphere in work environments, which could be jeopardized by a contrary interpretation of penal provisions.
This clarification came as the Court quashed a 2022 criminal case against the officiating director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), who was accused by an assistant professor of causing emotional distress through a loud reprimand. The Court highlighted that such rebukes are part of administrative functions and should not be misconstrued as attempts to provoke misconduct or breach of public peace.
Under the guidance of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, the bench emphasized that proceedings under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which has since been replaced by Section 352 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) effective July 2024, require proof that the reprimand was intended to incite a crime. The ruling pointed out that the charge of intentional insult demands a higher standard of proof, noting that the mere use of harsh words or rudeness does not meet this threshold.
The allegations against the NIMH director stemmed from a 2022 incident where he was said to have reprimanded the complainant in his office about her complaints against him, allegedly aggravating her post-Covid-19 health condition. However, the court found these claims to be speculative and insufficient to sustain the criminal charges.
The judgment also referenced previous rulings, such as Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra, to reinforce that the offense under Section 504 IPC necessitates an intentional effort to insult with the knowledge that it might provoke a criminal response.
