Recently, in a deeply problematic ruling, the Telangana High Court’s single-judge bench in Prasadam Raghu vs The State of Telangana delivered a judgment that fundamentally misinterprets the essence of sexual harassment. The Court held that comments including those stating that a woman needs to lose weight in order to satisfy her boss were seen to not amount to sexual harassment under section 354A of the Indian Penal Code. Surprisingly, the bench comprised a sole female judge. These rulings emerge during a period of increasing scrutiny of judicial inconsistencies in handling sexual harassment cases. This includes the suggestion to teenagers to contain their sexual urges by the Calcutta High Court in the Probhat Purkait case.
Legal Framework: Section 354A and Its Interpretation
Section 354A of the IPC defines ‘sexual harassment’:
“354-A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. —
(1) A man committing any of the following acts–
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
The corresponding provision in the newly enforced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanchita (‘BNS’) is section 75.
In casu, the petitioners were affiliated with Star India Pvt Ltd, a prominent broadcasting company. The complainant, Swetha Reddy, was approached owing to her selection for Big Boss, a reality TV show. Upon an enquiry, it was found that she had gained the position due to her rising social media presence. She was even suggested not to take up any projects for three months. She went on to meet up with the petitioners, where she was asked lewd questions. The petitioners subjected Reddy to humiliating and inappropriate questioning, asking invasive and sexually charged questions about ‘satisfying’ their boss and demanding she lose weight to appear more ‘attractive and beautiful’. Reddy left the place, feeling insulted and repulsed.
Surprisingly, the judgment, despite mentioning the entire conversation, goes on to state that this does not amount to sexual harassment. It was held that there was no mention of satisfying the boss sexually and a discussion on one’s physique does not amount to sexual harassment.
Judicial Myopia of the Courts
The Court’s narrow interpretation, which dismisses body-shaming comments as non-harassment, creates a dangerous precedent that undermines the protection of individual dignity and safety. Such remarks erode the modesty of a woman and ought to be penalised. Similarly, questions dealing with the ways Reddy would satisfy her boss were without doubt shaded by sexual advances, and the court failed to realise that their interpretation was erroneous. It is a trite law that penal provisions must be interpreted narrowly. However, this should not come at the expense of women who can increasingly become victims of sexual harassment due to the umbrella protection provided by the judiciary.
Furthermore, the Telangana HC incorporating a narrow perspective is counterintuitive to the interests of justice. Reddy was denied justice owing to an erroneous appreciation of the facts. It has been observed that the High Courts have been inconsistent in dealing with similar cases and usually depend on the personal whims and fancies of the judges. The Calcutta High Court, deviating from the norm of progressiveness, recently held that section 354A is a gender-specific provision and does not impose any liability on females. The court went on to quash the case which contained allegations against a woman. The Single Bench observed that as the provision specifically begins with “any man”, a woman cannot incur liability for the same. This is even reiterated in Section 75 of the BNS. This reasoning is problematic and affords unfair treatment to the male victims of sexual harassment.
Usually, the Calcutta HC has employed a more vigilant attitude towards cases pertaining to sexual harassment. In Janak Ram v. The State, the court remarked that calling a woman ‘darling’ would violate section 354 of IPC. This does not absolve the Calcutta HC of any shades of passing absurd rulings, which can be exemplified by the court ruling that female adolescents should contain their sexual urges as in the eyes of society she is the loser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes.
The Bombay HC, in the infamous Satish case, held that groping a child’s breast, without any skin-to-skin contact, does not amount to sexual harassment. While the case dealt with the POCSO Act, the remarkably absurd interpretation of the law and facts by the courts is astonishing. Both the Satish and the Probhat cases were reversed by the Supreme Court in later rulings, but the inconvenience and injustice offered by the High Courts, which stand as the beacon of justice, is shameful.
Conclusion
The Telangana HC quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in the Prasadam Ragu case. Another contentious aspect of the decision lies in the court not considering the outrage of the modesty of Reddy. The advances made were sexually coloured and attracted Section 354 (1)(ii) of the IPC. The conversation was vulgar enough to render Reddy repulsed and insulted. The insensitive attitude of the judiciary is surprising. Additionally, the Court putting forth that comments on one body do not constitute sexual harassment is disturbing.
The relationship between Section 354A and Article 19 of the Constitution has been covered extensively. However, there is a consensus that assertions which outrage the modesty of the woman are punishable. As such, the court not declaring that the comments made by the petitioners should have been punished in accordance with Section 509 of the IPC was illogical and erroneous.
The pattern of judicial decisions seemingly driven by personal prejudices rather than objective legal principles represents a critical failure in our judicial system, undermining the very foundations of justice and equity. While the Supreme Court has consistently overturned such problematic rulings, the persistent pattern of judicial misconduct at the High Court level remains concerning. There is a need for the High Courts to not let their personal views dominate their conscience while deliberating on legal issues and adopt an unbiased modus operandi, a foundational principle of law.
This blog is written by Shoubhit Daftuar, a Second Year student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai.
Linkedin: < https://www.linkedin.com/in/deepanshi-gupta-9a8653262?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app>. medium=android_app>.