Calling a Woman “R****i” is an Attack on Her Sexual Dignity and Attracts IPC Section 509: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that referring to a woman as “r***i” is not a casual abuse but a direct attack on her sexual dignity, thereby attracting the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while allowing a plea by a woman against the discharge of three accused by a trial court, ruled that the term used is laden with sexual innuendo and imputes unchastity, thereby lowering the woman’s esteem and dignity in the eyes of others.

“The word in question, when directed towards a woman, is laden with sexual innuendo and directly imputes unchastity to her,” the Court noted, emphasizing that the expression is not a casual term of abuse, but portrays a woman as of ‘loose moral character’.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Vice Principal of a school, had approached the trial court alleging harassment and abuse by three men — one of whom allegedly used obscene language, while the other two made shameful gestures, abused her in indecent language, and tried to overpower her.

She stated that the incident followed her confrontation with the school Principal after discovering that her attendance record had been mutilated with red ink. Despite lodging complaints with the school’s Manager, no action was taken, and the Principal was allegedly being shielded.

The trial court discharged the three accused, holding that their names were not mentioned in her initial complaints. Challenging this order, the petitioner moved the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court found that while the first two complaints didn’t name the accused, a subsequent complaint filed the very next day did specifically mention all three men and alleged their presence and participation in the abuse, though it did not detail the nature of the abuse.

Of the three accused, two were alleged to have called the complainant “saali”, said she was “talking rubbish”, and threatened to withhold promotion and terminate her from service.

Regarding these two individuals, the Court held: “The threats of withholding promotion or throwing the petitioner out of employment, though coercive and intimidating, are not linked with any sexual dignity of the petitioner and thus cannot be said to fall within the ambit of offence under Section 509 of IPC.”

However, for the third accused, the Court held that the use of the term “r***i” crossed the legal threshold: “The essence of Section 509 of IPC lies in the intent to insult the modesty of a woman, and modesty has been judicially understood as referring to the dignity associated with her sex. The allegation that respondent no. 2 had called the petitioner ―‘r***i’ would prima facie fall within the ambit of the offence under Section 509 of IPC.”

Justice Sharma stressed that whether such expression actually outraged the modesty of the complainant would be determined during trial, but prima facie the allegations warranted framing of charge.

“Accordingly, taking a prima facie view of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that a charge under Section 509 of IPC can indeed be framed against respondent no. 2,” the Court said.

The High Court set aside the discharge of the third accused and allowed proceedings under Section 509 IPC to continue against him. The other two accused were not found prima facie liable under the same provision.

Case Title: Shashi Bala v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.