The word ‘utterance’ in law must not be given a “pedantic interpretation”, bench said (File)
Mumbai:
Written words, either through email or on social media, that could lower the dignity of a woman constitutes an offence, the Bombay High Court said while refusing to quash a case against a man.
A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Neela Gokhale dismissed the petition filed by a man seeking to quash the 2009 case lodged against him under section 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code.
The man had allegedly written offensive and insulting emails to the complainant who lives in the same south Mumbai society as he does.
The emails, as per the complainant, made comments on her character and were forwarded to several other society members too.
The man sought quashing of the FIR contending that, as per section 509, the word ‘uttered’ would only mean ‘spoken words’ and not words ‘written’ in an email or social media posts and so on.
The court, however, dismissed his arguments observing courts must adopt a purposive approach of interpretation.
“Advent of modern technology has opened up a wide spectrum of means to communicate an insult. When an e-mail containing objectionable content likely to outrage the modesty of a woman stares at her, can we permit the perpetrator to walk away undaunted, simply because the insult is written and not spoken,” the court said.
Interpretation must correspond to societal transformations and re-evaluate legal principles to ensure fairness, justice and equity, the HC said.
“As the society evolves, the interpretation of the law too must be evolved to address emerging challenges and promote social progress. The law is a dynamic entity capable of reflecting and adapting to a society’s changing needs and values,” the bench said, adding the word ‘utterance’ in the law must not be given a “pedantic interpretation”.
“If such a narrow interpretation is accepted, many men will walk away, unhindered by consequences merely by shooting emails or using social media platforms to malign and insult a woman and outrage her modesty. Modern technology makes such manner of perpetrating the offence verily real,” it said.
The bench said the contents of the emails are “undeniably defamatory and aimed to lower the image and reputation” of the complainant in the eyes of society.
The court refused to quash the case. It, however, deleted the charges invoked against the man under IPC section 354 (assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage modesty).
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Hindkesharistaff and is published from a syndicated feed.)