The Delhi High Court has held that insulting a woman by calling her “gandi aurat” or being rude to her and not behaving as she would have expected cannot be treated as outraging her modesty.
“While reading the word ‘gandi aurat’ in background of overall circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s actions, when evaluated objectively, did not exhibit the level of intent or knowledge necessary to reasonably anticipate that they would provoke such a strong and adverse emotional reaction as to qualify as an outrage to a woman’s modesty,” the judge said.
The court said the words, ‘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 the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court allowed a petition filed by Varun Bhatia, a senior executive of a private bank, against the trial court’s order to frame charges related to outraging the modesty of a woman on a complaint by a subordinate staff, who abused her by calling her ‘gandi aurat’.
The court said that the petitioner should have been careful in use of harsh language against the complainant and should have been more courteous, even if they were having a tiff with each other.
THE CASE
In the present case, the complainant and the accused were in the capacity of employee and superior officer, respectively. There is no mention, apart from a single word, in her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that the accused had called her dirty woman, as they were having dispute which is apparent from a number of e-mails shared by them wherein he was continuously asking her to attend meetings and office. She was neither attending the meetings, coming to office on time nor complying with any of her duties as she was required to do.
“Thus, the case has also been examined in the backdrop of the conduct of the complainant herself…. Though this is not the sole reason to base the findings of the present order, it is important to note that there is no evidence of any behaviour on the part of the petitioner herein indicating that he persisted in any unwanted social conduct, but it is at best a case of vexatious comments which may reasonably be taken as unwelcome by the complainant herein. The language used is not profane or vulgar or sexually coloured but may hinge on harsh, derogatory language,” the court said.
In a criminal case, even at the stage of charge, the court has to draw a definition between there being prima facie material for framing charge and there being no material of the nature which will be sufficient to frame charge under the Section 509 IPC by fulfilling its basic ingredients, the bench said.
The court said: “In India, the criminal justice system is adversarial in nature.”
‘LEGISLATION SHOULD NOT BE MISCONSTRUED’
A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the mere fact that legislation is designed to address specific gender-related concerns should not be misconstrued as being inherently biased against the opposite gender or being anti-men.
“It is crucial to recognise that gender-specific laws are not meant to be anti-opposite gender but rather serve the purpose of addressing unique issues faced by a particular gender,” the court said. It also emphasised that the existence of gender-specific legislation does not empower the court to relax the golden principle of availability of sufficiency of “material on record” at the stage of framing of charge. “The foundation of any legal proceeding, regardless of the specific gender it pertains to, rests on the availability of adequate evidence and adherence to due process of law. In essence, gender specificity should not compromise the fundamental principles of fairness and justice,” the bench said.
The court highlighted that 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,” it was pointed out.
“In essence, ‘outraging the modesty of a woman’ transcends a mere definition; it is an embodiment of the collective commitment to respect, equality, and the preservation of individual rights. It underscores the importance of upholding the dignity and self-worth of every woman, acknowledging the unique and multifaceted nature of this concept in different cultural and societal contexts. Ultimately, it reinforces the imperative to protect and empower women, ensuring their right to live free from insults, affronts, or abuses to their feminine sense of propriety and decorum,” the bench said.
Comments
0 comment