The Supreme Court recently ruled that Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses insulting the modesty of a woman, cannot be invoked merely by stating that “filthy language” was used. The Court emphasized that there must be additional context or accompanying words that indicate an intent to insult the woman’s modesty [Mashushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka].
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Kumar Mishra clarified that specific words, contextual details, or gestures—whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying the alleged words—must be referenced to demonstrate a criminal intent to insult.
The Court observed, “The term ‘filthy language,’ when considered in isolation and without contextual details or accompanying words indicating an intent to insult the complainant’s modesty, does not fall under the purview of Section 509 of the IPC.”
The case involved an employee who claimed she was wrongfully terminated and that her employer had confiscated her laptop containing intellectual property. She further alleged that two senior colleagues used “filthy language” while terminating her and that security personnel had forcibly removed her from the office.
The employee filed an FIR under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the IPC.
After the High Court refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet, the accused approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court quashed the Section 509 IPC charge, ruling that the actions of the accused did not demonstrate the necessary intent or knowledge to provoke a response severe enough to insult the woman’s modesty. The Court also noted that the complaint did not specify the use of language that would justify an offence under Section 509 of the IPC.
While the chargesheet claimed that the accused used “filthy language,” the FIR did not include such an allegation. The Court raised concerns about the lack of specific words, contextual details, or accompanying gestures, and noted that the absence of “filthy language” in the complaint raised doubts about the claim of insulting the complainant’s modesty.
The Court ruled that prima facie, the ingredients of an offence under Section 509 were not met.
Regarding the offence of hurt, the Court explained that for a conviction under Section 323 IPC, there must be a voluntary act causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity. The Court found that there was no evidence of actual hurt.
For criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC), the Court held that it must be shown that the accused had the intention to cause alarm to the complainant, which was not established.
Finally, for Section 504 IPC (intentional insults causing a breach of peace), the Court ruled that to prove this offence, it must be demonstrated that the insult was intentional and that it would provoke a disturbance of public peace or lead to the commission of another offence.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that none of the ingredients for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, or 509 IPC were present, even if the complainant’s allegations were taken at face value.
