The Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 354 criminalises criminal force or assault with the intent to outrage a woman's modesty. What does this cover? Is this broad? And does it apply equally in all contexts?
1 Answer
"Modesty" is not defined within the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but the Supreme Court of India's judgement in Ramkripal S/O Shyamlal Charmakar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2007 concluded that:
...The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word 'modesty' is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to woman as follows:
"Decorous in manner and conduct;
not forward or lower; Shame-fast;
Scrupulously chast."
Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to woman, "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct." It is the reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions.
As an aid to show what activities may be covered by the IPC offence, the Singapore Penal Code 1871, at section 354, mirrors the IPC word-for-word (apart from the prison sentence), and the Singaporean courts have held the following acts to be an outrage of modesty in the past:
A male offender repeatedly touched the thigh of a sleeping woman on an MRT train.
A man rubbed his thigh against a young tutor several times on a bus.
Groping a domestic maid in a lift.
Touching the buttocks of a 60-year-old woman on a bus.
A male exposed himself to a domestic helper.
A tutor touching the breasts of a student.
Slapping a secretary lightly on the buttocks.
Massaging a man’s groin area without his consent.
-
from the wordings of the law , the reaction of the victims doesn't matter , but the intent and knowledge of the perpetrator matters. which brings the question about how broadly can criminal force and assault be interpreted. the wording of the act makes it seem like all acts of violenve against women are covered. or at least which end up in degradation I think. but is this rrally the case ?– user49663Commented Mar 28, 2023 at 18:09