Recently, the Calcutta High Court stated that calling an anonymous lady “darling” is a kind of sexual harassment that is illegal in India under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to reports, on October 21, 2015, during Durga Puja, Janak Ram inappropriately said to a female policeman, “Darling, have you come to collect a fine?”
A detailed narrative of the circumstances leading up to Ram’s arrest and the legal actions that followed was given by the prosecution’s eleven witnesses, some of whom were police officers present during the incident, throughout the trial.
The attorney for Ram argued that the event did not justify the use of sections 354-A(1)(iv) and 509 of the IPC, citing the admission of an independent witness that the comments said were meant as a jest. Additionally, it was said that the phrase “darling” is widely used in Indian culture and does not necessarily have a sexual connotation. The defense said that contextual and cultural standards should be taken into account and that the female constable’s modesty was not intentionally insulted.
The Trial Court fined him and ordered that he spend three months in jail for each offense, to be served consecutively. The Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction. Ram disputed the content of his statements and the harshness of the punishment in an appeal to the High Court.
Considering the issue of whether sexual harassment is a crime covered by Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code. The court focused on Section 354A (1)(iv), which penalizes comments that are sexually suggestive. Judge Jay Sengupta said, “Addressing an unknown lady, whether a police constable or not, on the street by a man, drunken or nor, with the word “darling” is patently offensive and the word used essentially is a sexually coloured remark.”
The court said in response to the defense’s argument over the convict’s intoxication, “The defence alleges that there is no proof that the man was drunk. If this was done in a sobre state, the gravity of the offence would perhaps be even more.”
The court held that the aforementioned section covers acts meant to offend a woman’s modesty, including words or gestures with a sexual orientation, in response to the accusation under Section 509 IPC (Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). According to the legal interpretation, calling a stranger a name that she doesn’t deserve is considered a denigration of her modesty, regardless of the intention behind the words.