A Delhi district court’s ‘modesty’ verdict goes one step ahead in de-normalising misogynist slurs

IN A SIGNIFICANT AND MUCH-NEEDED PRONOUNCEMENT, a Delhi court, through Judicial Magistrate First Class (‘JMFC’) Harjot Singh Aujla of Dwarka courts, reaffirmed the legal and moral stance that the use of the term “r***i” (a derogatory Hindi term referring to a sex worker) directed at a woman constitutes an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). The judgment makes a clear and reasoned articulation that such words are not mere insults — they are gendered, sexually loaded, and intended to attack the dignity, character, and modesty of a woman.

The Court observed, “the word is not a word which is used simply to insult a person. The word is bound to insult the modesty of any hardworking woman. Especially, when this word is used to a woman, it denotes that the said woman is not loyal and also shows that the word is intended to mean that the woman is promiscuous and it casts an aspersion on her character.”

While the term “modesty” in common English usage may denote honesty, truthfulness, humility, and self-respect, its meaning under Section 509 of the IPCcarries a distinct legal and gendered connotation. For the purposes of this provision, modesty refers specifically to a woman’s sexual dignity and sanctity — a recognition of her bodily autonomy and the respect she is entitled to in relation to her sexual personhood.

Every woman possesses an inherent sense of self-worth concerning her body, particularly her sexual and reproductive identity. This personal dignity is not merely individual, it is also reflected and reinforced by the expectations of a civilised society, which recognises and upholds the sanctity of a woman’s body. The law acknowledges that women, by virtue of the patriarchal structures they navigate daily, are often sexually vulnerable, subjected to words and actions intended to shame, humiliate, or assert control over them. It is this vulnerability that Section 509 IPC is designed to protect. The provision exists not to moralise, but to protect a woman’s right to live free from verbal sexual aggression, from derogatory gestures or remarks that violate her sense of safety, honour, and self.

Section 509 IPC

Section 509 IPC criminalises “words, gesture, sound, or object intended to insult the modesty of a woman, or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman” carrying a punishment of simple imprisonment which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

Definition of modesty

The 1933 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary defines modesty as “womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct, reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions.”

The Supreme Court in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2004) noted that “the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex”, meaning that modesty is an attribute inherently linked to a woman by virtue of her gender. It further clarified that the ultimate test to determine whether modesty has been outraged is to assess whether the act of the accused is such that it could shock the sense of decency of a woman, keeping in mind that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The court in State of  Punjab vs Major Singh (1966)  interpreted ‘modesty’ as an attribute of the female sex that exists from birth, regardless of age.

Ingredients of Section 509 IPC

To constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, there must be a clear and deliberate intention to insult the modesty of a woman or to intrude upon her privacy. This intention must be directed to ensure that the offending gesture or object is seen by the woman, or that the offending words or sound uttered, are heard or perceived by her. The mere existence of offensive language or gestures, without this element of intention and directness, is not sufficient to attract the provision.