Women's Harassment Laws

Bombay High Court’s Shocking Stance on Women’s Harassment

In a surprising ruling, the Bombay High Court declared that actions such as following a woman, abusing her, and pushing her on a bicycle are merely ‘annoying’ and not offenses under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which convicts individuals for outraging a woman’s modesty. The judgment, while legally sound, prompts a critical examination of its alignment with the harsh realities women encounter.

The court, presided over by Justice Anil L. Pansare, underscored the distinction between ‘annoyance’ and ‘outraging modesty,’ asserting that the cited actions may be offensive but do not shock the sense of decency of a woman. The decision hinged on the absence of specific evidence pinpointing inappropriate touching, compromising decency, or violating the woman’s modesty.

While legally dissecting the case, the court referenced the Supreme Court‘s decision in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need for criminal force with the intent to outrage modesty under Section 354. However, the ruling raises a crucial societal dialogue on the broader implications of such acts, considering that modesty violation extends beyond physical violations to encompass personal space invasion, erosion of security, and the right to move freely without fear.

The judgment led to the acquittal of Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail from charges, challenging orders from the Sessions Court and Magistrate Court in Wardha. However, the decision has sparked concerns about women’s safety, questioning the normalization of stalking as a mere ‘annoying’ act devoid of legal consequences.

The verdict has stirred controversy by seemingly overlooking the psychological torment inflicted by stalking, undermining the profound emotional and psychological impact on victims. It challenges the societal perception of stalking as a series of annoying acts rather than a serious offense. The judgment’s questionable standpoint has implications for women’s safety, prompting a reevaluation of legal perspectives on gender crimes. In a society where reporting such crimes faces obstacles rooted in familial and judicial attitudes, the ruling raises concerns about the protection and justice afforded to victims of gender-based offenses.

_{Repurposed article originally published in ShethePeople}