The Calcutta High Court has ruled that mere allegations of harassment or abuse in the workplace, without specific reference to words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman, are insufficient to attract liability under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. This section penalizes any word, gesture, sound, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman or intrude upon her privacy. The Court clarified that to constitute an offence under this provision, the act must be capable of shocking the sense of decency of the woman involved and must reflect a clear intention to outrage her modesty.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee delivered the judgment while quashing proceedings against a petitioner who had been accused by a former trainee journalist of harassing her during her tenure at a media organization. The complainant, who had worked with the organization in Delhi and later in Kolkata, alleged that she was subjected to mental harassment and bullying by the petitioner and other employees. She resigned from her position in July 2017 and filed a complaint in October 2018, more than a year later. Though her initial complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, was dismissed on the ground of being time-barred, the internal committee still conducted an inquiry and cleared the petitioner of any wrongdoing.
Despite this, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings under Section 509 IPC. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of these proceedings. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint was vague and lacked any specific details necessary to support the allegations under the said provision. The counsel pointed out that the complaint neither contained any specific instance of abusive language nor described any gestures or acts aimed at insulting the complainant's modesty.
The Court examined the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and found that there were no allegations of any specific incident where the petitioner had used any words or gestures that could be construed as intending to insult the complainant’s modesty. The Court observed that for the offence under Section 509 IPC to be made out, it is essential that the accused must have intended to insult the modesty of a woman through words, gestures, or actions. Such intent must be evident from the nature of the act itself.
The Court further highlighted that workplace pressure or even rude or harsh conduct does not automatically fall within the purview of Section 509 IPC unless it directly targets and insults the modesty of a woman. It emphasized that modesty, in this context, implies a sense of decency and sexual dignity, and for an offence to be established, the accused must have deliberately acted in a manner that violated this aspect of the woman’s personality. General allegations of mental harassment, bullying, or pressure to perform tasks, without a direct link to an intention to insult modesty, were held to be outside the ambit of this penal provision.
The High Court also noted that statements from other witnesses recorded during the investigation did not reveal any conduct on the part of the petitioner that could be considered as an intentional insult to the complainant’s modesty. Though some witnesses mentioned that the petitioner placed professional pressure on employees, none provided any details suggesting conduct amounting to outraging a woman’s modesty.
Justice Mukherjee observed that allowing such vague and unsupported claims to proceed would not only be unjust but would also result in an abuse of the legal process. He emphasized that the threshold for initiating criminal prosecution under Section 509 must be strictly adhered to, and where the essential ingredients of the offence are not present, such proceedings must be quashed to prevent harassment of the accused.
Accordingly, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It reiterated that the judicial system should not be used as a tool for personal vendettas or professional grievances, especially when the allegations do not meet the statutory criteria for criminal liability.
The judgment reinforces the principle that not all forms of workplace misconduct amount to criminal offences, particularly under provisions meant to safeguard a woman’s modesty. It underlines the necessity for courts to distinguish between actionable criminal conduct and general workplace disputes or unprofessional behavior. For a successful prosecution under Section 509 IPC, there must be a demonstrable intent to insult the modesty of a woman, supported by specific and detailed allegations.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s ruling serves as a significant clarification of the law relating to offences against the modesty of women under the Indian Penal Code. It draws a clear line between inappropriate workplace behavior and criminal offences, ensuring that the criminal justice system is not misused for vague or unsubstantiated grievances. The judgment upholds the requirement of specificity and intent in allegations under Section 509 and affirms the importance of maintaining a fair and principled approach in the application of criminal law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.