Gender specific laws not anti-men; courts must be gender neutral while dealing with such cases: Delhi High court

The Delhi High Court Monday ruled that Calling a woman 'gandi aurat' or being rude to her will not amount to the offence of insulting modesty under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that word 'Gandi Aurat' read in isolation without context, without any preceding or succeeding words indicating any intent to outrage modesty of a woman will not bring these words within the ambit of Section 509, IPC.“In this context, the words used, 'Gandi Aurat,' while certainly impolite and offensive, do not rise to the level of criminal intent driven words that would typically provoke shock in a woman so as to be covered in the definition of criminal offence under Section 509 of IPC,” the Court said.Pertinently, the High Court said that courts should be gender neutral even when it is dealing with gender specific offences and merely because a law is designed to address specific gender related concerns, it should not be misconstrued as being inherently anti-men.Irrespective of the gender-specific nature of a law, the judicial duty fundamentally requires unwavering neutrality and impartiality, the single-judge stated.The judge's role is to objectively interpret and apply the law, free from any form of gender bias or predisposition, the Court underlined.Pertinently, the Court said that merely because a law is designed to address specific gender related concerns, it should not be misconstrued as being inherently anti-men.It noted that gender-specific legislation exists to address the unique concerns and challenges faced by particular genders within society. However, this does not imply that the judge is to be influenced or swayed by gender-related factors when administering justice unless specific presumptions are legislated in favour of a particular gender in law.“In India, the criminal justice system is adversarial in nature. However, it cannot be seen as adversarial between men and women per se. Instead, it should solely revolve around two individuals: one being the complainant and the other being the accused irrespective of the gender, however, at the same time, while adjudicating the cases firmly remembering and appreciating the social context and situation of a particular gender who may be in a lesser advantageous situation than the other,” Justice Sharma observed..In a detailed judgement pronounced on Monday, the Court also dealt with the issue of ‘outraging modesty of a woman’ and concluded that what constitutes an outrage to modesty can be context-specific, as it depends on societal norms, cultural values, and individual perspectives.The Court stressed that a delicate balance must be struck while construing the intention of the accused in cases of outraging the modesty of a woman and it is not appropriate to automatically presume the existence of this intention without thoroughly considering multifaceted elements.“Precise and context-specific assessments are required to ensure that justice is both fair and accurate. This balanced approach acknowledges the need to protect the rights and dignity of women while also recognizing the complexities and nuances of human behaviour, as well as the importance of considering the specific circumstances and background of each case," the Court said..Justice Sharma made the observations while dealing with a plea filed by a man challenging a trial court order from July 5, 2018 framing charges against him under Section 509 (words, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The complainant alleged that the accused was her senior at work and that he used bad language against her when she refused to give him ₹1,000 and called her ‘Gandi Aurat’ (dirty woman)..The Court considered the case as well as Section 509 of the IPC and concluded that merely calling a woman ‘Gandi Aurat’ (dirty woman) without there being any contextual words indicating an intent to outrage her modesty will not amount to an offence under Section 509.Justice Sharma was also of the view that insulting a woman or being rude to her and not behaving with in a chivalrous manner will not be covered under the definition of outraging the modesty of a woman.The Court, therefore, set aside the trial court order..Advocate KC Mittal, Yugansh Mittal and Vaibhav Yadav appeared for the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor(APP) Manoj Pant represented the Delhi Police.Advocates Ajit Kumar, Nutan Kumari, Nikita Sharma and Alok Kumar appeared for the complainant..[Read Judgment]