Body-shaming, verbal abuse not enough to prove offence of insulting woman’s modesty: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently held that allegations of body-shaming and verbally abusing another woman do not, by themselves, constitute the offence of insulting a woman’s modesty under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 509 IPC criminalises words, sounds, gestures or acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty, as well as intrusions into her privacy. The provision prescribes a maximum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine.

Justice SR Krishna Kumar quashed criminal proceedings against two women, aged 25 and 27, accused of body-shaming and verbally abusing another woman in Bengaluru.

“Having regard to the mandatory ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, merely because the petitioners and accused No.3 (the women accused of body-shaming) are said to have bodyshamed the complainant and insulted her about her physical appearance, it cannot be said that the material on record discloses the commission of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC,” the Court said.

The case arose from a complaint filed in August 2023 by a 26-year-old woman, who alleged that two women and a man verbally abused her and her friends the previous night. She alleged that the group used fat-shaming, body-shaming, racist and vulgar language, causing her and her friend mental trauma and distress.

Based on the complaint, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 509 of the IPC. After investigating the complaint, the police filed a chargesheet, leading to criminal proceedings before a Bengaluru magistrate court.

However, the High Court found that the material did not contain the necessary ingredients to establish an offence under Section 509 IPC.

It noted that proceedings against the third person accused in the same incident had already been quashed by the High Court in June 2024. Since the allegations against the two women were identical to those against the third accused, the Court applied the principle of parity. It held that people facing the same allegations in the same circumstances should ordinarily receive similar treatment.

Advocate Ankur Trripati appeared for the petitioners.

High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Deepthi Alva represented the State of Karnataka.

[Read Judgment]