The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of a man who called a woman constable "darling" while intoxicated. The Court ruled that referring to an unknown woman as "darling" constitutes sexual harassment under Indian law. It noted that Indian society does not currently accept men using sexually charged terms to refer to unacquainted women. While the man's jail term was reduced from three months to one month, the Court affirmed that "darling" in this context was an offensive, sexually colored remark that violated the woman's modesty.
Original Description:
Original Title
Calling women darling is construed as sexual harassment
The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of a man who called a woman constable "darling" while intoxicated. The Court ruled that referring to an unknown woman as "darling" constitutes sexual harassment under Indian law. It noted that Indian society does not currently accept men using sexually charged terms to refer to unacquainted women. While the man's jail term was reduced from three months to one month, the Court affirmed that "darling" in this context was an offensive, sexually colored remark that violated the woman's modesty.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of a man who called a woman constable "darling" while intoxicated. The Court ruled that referring to an unknown woman as "darling" constitutes sexual harassment under Indian law. It noted that Indian society does not currently accept men using sexually charged terms to refer to unacquainted women. While the man's jail term was reduced from three months to one month, the Court affirmed that "darling" in this context was an offensive, sexually colored remark that violated the woman's modesty.
• The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of a man, who called a woman constable "darling" in an inebriated condition, saying such an expression is sexually coloured and penalised under Sections 354A (outraging modesty of a woman) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"Addressing an unknown lady, whether a police constable
or not, on the street by a man, drunken or not, with the word 'darling' is patently offensive, and the word used is essentially a sexually coloured remark," the bench noted.
• The single-judge Justice Jay Sengupta at the High Court's Port Blair bench made the observation while upholding the conviction of one Janak Ram who had called a woman constable "darling" in an inebriated condition.
• Justice Sengupta said that as of now the standards of
Indian society are not that a man can "gleefully be permitted" to use expressions such as the usage of the word 'darling' with respect to "unsuspecting, unacquainted women".
• The court further said that if the incident happened
when the appellant was in a sober state, the "gravity of the offence would perhaps be even more".
• The Case: i. While addressing a complaint received; few of the policemen including the woman constable stayed back at the location. When they decided to go under a streetlight in front of a shop as the place was dark, the appellant (Janak Ram) asked her the sexually coloured question. ii. Janak Ram had asked the woman constable (the complainant in the case) "kya darling, challan karne aayi hai kya? (Hi, darling, have you come to impose a fine?)". iii. An FIR in this regard under Sections 354A (1) (iv) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC was filed. iv. The Judicial Magistrate convicted him for offences under Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of IPC and sent him to a three-month jail and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs 500 for each of the two offences. v. Janak Ram's appeal against the same was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Then, he filed the current petition before the Calcutta High Court. vi. During the hearing, Justice Sengupta-led bench noted there was adequate evidence to prove Janak Ram had indeed addressed the woman constable in the manner alleged. vii. However, the High Court observed that Janak Ram did not "aggravate" the offence and stopped at uttering the offensive word only. Therefore, his jail term was reduced to one month imprisonment.