The Delhi High Court has held that addressing a woman by the word “r***i” constitutes an assault on her character by implying sexual impropriety, and amounts to the offence of outraging her modesty under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that this term, when used toward a woman, is laden with sexual innuendo and directly imputes unchastity. It is not a casual abuse but one which degrades her moral character, humiliates her and lowers her in public estimation by attacking her very status as a woman. The Court emphasized that the core of Section 509 is the intent to insult the modesty of a woman, with modesty judicially understood as her dignity associated with her sex.
The case before the Court involved a woman who was vice principal at a school. She alleged that her attendance record had been tampered with (mutilated in red ink), and when she approached the Principal, one of the accused used abusive language and obscene remarks. The other two insulted her in indecent language, made shameful gestures, abused her, and attempted to overpower her. She claimed repeated complaints to the Manager of the school had been ignored, and that the Principal was given protection.
The trial court had earlier discharged all three accused under Section 509, on the basis that in her first two complaints she had not named them. However, the High Court noted that in a subsequent complaint made the very next day, the complainant did name all three men, alleging their presence and participation in abusing and harassing her, though she did not specify the nature of abuse in that complaint. Among the three, two were alleged to have called her “saali”, “talking rubbish”, and threatened to deny her promotion or terminate her employment. The Court found that while those two actions were coercive and intimidating, they were not linked to her sexual dignity in a way that would render them offences under Section 509. Thus, for them, those threats did not satisfy the requirements of that section.
However, regarding the third man (respondent no. 2), the High Court found that calling her “ri” and using certain other abusive remarks did cross the line. The Court held that the expression “ri” could not be treated as a mere insult or casual abuse; it prima facie infringed upon the woman’s sexual dignity, thus meeting the threshold for the offence under Section 509. Consequently, the High Court ruled that a charge under Section 509 can indeed be framed against respondent no. 2. Whether in the specific facts and circumstances of the case it does actually amount to outraging modesty will be a matter for trial.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.