Modesty means the sexual dignity of women—the essence of a woman’s modesty lies in her "sex." For over a century, courts have deliberated on the precise meaning of a woman's modesty. After numerous cases and extensive judicial consideration, a clearer definition has emerged. This article delves into the concept of “outraging the modesty of women” in India, examining its meaning, the relevant legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), crime statistics, and significant court cases that have shaped its interpretation.
Modesty refers to the quality of not seeking to be noticed by others or refraining from discussing one's abilities. For women, modesty is intrinsically linked to their sexual dignity, which is inherent from birth. The concept of modesty is subjective, varying from woman to woman, and encompasses her personal sexual boundaries. Outraging modesty involves a physical act that violates these boundaries without consent, regardless of the woman’s age or status.
Essential ingredients for the offense of outraging modesty include:
Defines “man” and “woman,” applicable regardless of age. For example, a 2-year-old girl is considered a woman under Section 354.
Addresses assault or criminal force used on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty. Punishment includes imprisonment of 1 to 5 years and a fine. Essential ingredients are:
Inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, these sections address specific offenses like sexual harassment, intent to disrobe, voyeurism, and stalking, with distinct punishments and procedural guidelines.
Section 354A: Sexual Harassment Punishes physical contact, unwelcome sexual advances, demands for sexual favors, and showing pornography without consent. Offenses are cognizable, bailable, and punishable by imprisonment up to three years and a fine.
Section 354B: Intent to Disrobe Punishes assault or criminal force intending to disrobe a woman. The punishment is 3 to 7 years of imprisonment and a fine. The offense is cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by any magistrate.
Section 354C: Voyeurism Punishes watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in private acts without her consent. First conviction: 1 to 3 years imprisonment and a fine. Subsequent convictions: 3 to 7 years imprisonment and a fine. The offense is cognizable and bailable on first conviction, non-bailable on subsequent convictions.
Section 354D: Stalking Punishes following or contacting a woman despite clear disinterest, and monitoring her internet usage. First conviction: up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine. Subsequent convictions: up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine. The offense is cognizable and bailable on first conviction, non-bailable on subsequent convictions.
Section 509: Word, Gesture, or Act Intended to Insult Modesty Punishes using words, sounds, gestures, or exhibiting objects intending to insult a woman’s modesty. Punishment includes imprisonment up to three years and a fine. The offense is cognizable, bailable, and triable by a magistrate.
According to the National Commission for Women (NCW), there has been a significant increase in crimes against women. In 2021, 23,722 complaints were received, marking a 30% increase from 2020. Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number of complaints, followed by Delhi, Maharashtra, Haryana, and Bihar.
While there are robust legal provisions for protecting women against offenses that outrage their modesty, there is a lack of specific provisions addressing sexual harassment against men. Men can also be victims of sexual harassment, facing similar trauma and societal ridicule. It is essential for legislation to evolve and provide protection for all individuals, regardless of gender.
Ankariya V. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) This case clarified that loosening a woman’s petticoat cords with intent to outrage her modesty falls under Section 354, not rape under Section 375.
State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1966) The court held that causing injury to a minor's private part constitutes outraging her modesty under Section 354.
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a superior for sexually harassing a subordinate, emphasizing the need for strict punishment in such cases.
Leave a comment