Intention to Insult Must Be Clear and Unambiguous to Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court quashes proceedings, emphasizes that abusive remarks without clear intent to insult a woman's modesty do not meet Section 509 IPC standards

The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, has quashed the criminal proceedings against M.V. Joseph, accused under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly insulting the modesty of a woman. The court clarified that mere utterance of abusive words without the intention to insult the modesty of a woman or intrude upon her privacy does not constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC.

The case originated from an incident on June 26, 2019, when the de-facto complainant, Anju, visited the BSNL office in Tripunithura to convert her micro SIM card to a nano SIM card. The accused, M.V. Joseph, allegedly failed to perform the task properly and demanded Rs. 100 for a new SIM card. When Anju refused, Joseph reportedly made a derogatory comment in Malayalam, leading to the complaint that he insulted her modesty.

Clarification on Section 509 IPC: The court examined Section 509 of the IPC, which criminalizes words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman or intrude upon her privacy. Justice Badharudeen cited precedents, emphasizing that for a prosecution under Section 509 IPC, there must be a clear intention to insult the modesty of a woman or intrude upon her privacy.

Evaluation of Alleged Insult: Justice Badharudeen noted that the alleged comment by the accused, even if abusive, did not show a definitive intention to insult Anju's modesty. The court referenced prior decisions, including Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil Episcopa v. State of Kerala and Basheer v. State of Kerala, which underscored that mere insults or offensive remarks do not meet the threshold for Section 509 IPC unless they specifically target a woman's modesty or privacy.

The judgment detailed the legal definition of modesty, relying on dictionary meanings and judicial interpretations. The court underscored that the essence of an offence under Section 509 IPC is the intent behind the words or actions. In this case, the court found that Joseph's comment, though inappropriate, lacked the requisite intent to insult Anju's modesty or intrude upon her privacy.

Justice Badharudeen remarked, "To sum up, mere utterance of unpleasant or abusive words without an intention either to insult the modesty of the woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman would not attract offence under Section 509 of IPC."

The quashing of the proceedings against M.V. Joseph reiterates the importance of intent in cases involving allegations of insulting a woman's modesty under Section 509 IPC. This judgment clarifies the legal standards required to establish such offences and is likely to influence future cases, ensuring that only actions with a clear intent to insult or intrude upon a woman's modesty are prosecuted under this section.

Date of Decision:  May 21, 2024