New Delhi: Laws aimed at addressing gender-specific concerns should not be misconstrued as “anti-men”, the Delhi High Court observed Monday.
A bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma was hearing a petition by a petitioner, Varun Bhatia, who was appealing against a lower court ruling which found a prima facie case against him for “outraging the modesty of a woman” under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner, who had been accused of harassment at workplace, was asking for discharge in the case.
While setting aside the lower court’s order, the judge said gender-specific laws cater to the concerns and challenges that certain genders face in society. But this doesn’t imply that “the judge is to be influenced or swayed by gender-related factors when administering justice unless specific presumptions are legislated in favour of a particular gender in law”.
“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 wherever applicable,” the court held.
It also held that the usage of the Hindi phrase ‘gandi aurat’ (bad woman) without the preceding or succeeding showing intent to outrage modesty, will not fall in the ambit of this section.
Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code deals with ‘word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman’.
“In essence, judicial neutrality is an indispensable cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that all parties, regardless of gender, are treated fairly and equitably,” the single-judge bench said.
In this case, the woman worked with the petitioner in the same office at HDFC Life Insurance in Delhi and accused him of showing “his power” and even demanding money from her on occasion.
Also Read: ‘Self-respect’ marriages in Tamil Nadu don’t need public solemnisation, says SC
‘Essential to consider the threshold of emotional response’
In its order on 5 July, 2018, the trial court had found that a case under Section 509 was made against the petitioner.
In the appeal before the high court, the petitioner said the complainant herself was an “irregular and indisciplined” employee. He denied publicly scolding her and also contended that the she had raised the complaint “as he was raising the issue of her poor performance with the HR Department of the company”.
Meanwhile, the additional public prosecutor for the state argued that the complainant had previously filed a complaint against the petitioner with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), and that the petitioner had even received a warning.
It was argued that no ground for the discharge of the accused petitioner could be made out because of the prima facie material against the accused. The judicial officer also rejected the petitioner’s claims of the complainant’s “underperformance” at work.
In its order, the Delhi HC held that 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 IPC”.
“It is essential to consider the threshold of emotional response that is required for an act to be considered as an outrage,” the court ruled.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)
Also Read: Husband not paying maintenance despite court order? HC says civil suit can be filed for arrears