The Bombay High Court, while refusing to quash a case against a man, observed that written words -- either through e-mail or on social media -- that could lower a woman's dignity constitutes an offence.
A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Neela Gokhale dismissed the petition filed by a man seeking to quash a 2009 case lodged against him under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman).
The man had allegedly written offensive and insulting emails to a woman -- the complainant -- who lives in the same society as him in south Mumbai.
As per the complainant, the emails which made offensive remarks on her character were also forwarded to several other members of the society.
The quashing of the FIR was sought by the man on the basis of section 509 and said that as per this provision, the word "uttered" would only mean "spoken words" and not "written words" in an email or a social post or so on.
However, the High Court bench dismissed his arguments and observed that 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 High Court asked.
The division observed that interpretation must evolve with the transformation of the society and legal values must be re-evaluated to ensure justice in the changing times.
"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 HC said, adding that 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," the bench said.
The division bench noted that the contents of the emails from the man are "undeniably defamatory and aimed to lower the image and reputation" of the complainant in the eyes of the society.
Hence, the court refused to quash against the man. However, it deleted the charges invoked against the man under IPC Section 354 (assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage modesty).
