In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has highlighted the necessity for a gender-neutral approach in cases involving gender-specific laws. The court emphasized that such laws are not designed to be "anti-opposite gender" but rather to address the distinct challenges faced by particular genders in society. The ruling came as the court set aside a trial court's order that had charged a man for allegedly outraging the modesty of a woman by using derogatory language.
Brief Facts:
The prosecution alleged that a man had used derogatory language and insulted a woman by referring to her as a "gandi aurat" (dirty woman). The incident took place within the context of a workplace, where both the complainant woman and the accused man were employed, with the latter holding a senior position.
The complainant's contention was that the accused had used foul language against her after she refused to lend him ₹1,000. She claimed that his use of derogatory language amounted to insulting her modesty, as per the provisions of Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused, on the other hand, argued that his use of the term "gandi aurat" lacked the intent or context necessary to be classified as outraging the modesty of a woman. He contended that his words were isolated and devoid of any accompanying gestures or context that could suggest a criminal intent to insult the complainant's modesty.
Observations by the Court:
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, delivering the verdict, underscored that the existence of gender-specific legislation does not grant courts the authority to compromise the fundamental principles of fairness and justice. The core foundation of any legal proceeding, regardless of gender specificity, is the availability of sufficient and relevant evidence during the stage of framing charges.
The ruling reiterated that gender-specific laws should not lead to the alteration of a judge's role from one of neutrality to a biased stance based on gender. Regardless of the gender-specific nature of the law, the judiciary's primary duty remains steadfast neutrality and impartiality. Judges are required to objectively interpret and apply the law without being influenced by gender-related factors unless specific presumptions are legislatively established.
The court further stressed that judicial neutrality is an indispensable cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that all parties involved, irrespective of gender, are treated fairly and equitably.
The case under consideration revolved around an incident where a man allegedly used derogatory language against a woman and called her a "gandi aurat" (dirty woman). The high court meticulously analyzed the situation and concluded that the words used, taken in isolation, did not meet the criteria for outraging the modesty of a woman under the relevant section of the Indian Penal Code.
The court clarified that using insulting or rude language towards a woman, even lacking chivalrous behaviour, may not amount to outraging her modesty, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. It distinguished between harsh language and language that is profane, vulgar, or sexually coloured.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the petition along with pending applications were disposed of.
Case Name: Varun Bhatia v. State and Another
Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No.: Crl. Rev. P. 1032/2018 & CRL.M.A. 48099/2018 & CRL.M.A. 48100/2018 (for delay)
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Mr. Yugansh Mittal and Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Advocates.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ms. Nutan Kumari, Ms. Nikita Sharma and Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocates for R-2.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
