Defamatory words through emails, social media posts can constitute insult to woman’s modesty: HC

The bench clarified that the term “utterance” under Section 509 of the IPC encompasses not only spoken words but also objectionable written content in emails or social media posts.

A division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Neela K Gokhale was hearing a plea by petitioner who was booked for allegedly sending  defamatory emails to daughter of a former chairperson of a cooperative housing society in South Mumbai and copying it to other society members.

The petitioner had sought to quash the FIR registered in December 2009 with the Cyber Cell of the Mumbai Police and to set aside the related criminal proceedings.

Rendering their judgment on August 21, the court did not quash the FIR but partly allowed the plea, deleting the charges under Sections 354 (use of criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman) and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, stating that these offences were not substantiated.

The court emphasised that sharing personal details of a woman with third parties, especially residents she frequently encounters, without her consent, constitutes an affront to her dignity.

The woman, in this case, claimed that the petitioner exploited her elderly mother’s illness to usurp the chairperson’s position and sent defamatory and threatening emails.

Senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani, representing the petitioner, argued that the FIR was filed out of vendetta due to existing animosity between the petitioner and the woman’s family.

However, advocate Kushal Mor, representing the respondent woman, contended that the petitioner habitually circulated threatening and vulgar emails for financial gain and intended to terrorise the mother-daughter duo. Mor dismissed the petitioner’s attempt to classify the email content as “mere idioms”.

In response to the petitioner’s claim that emails did not constitute “utterances” or “gestures” under Section 509 IPC, the bench remarked that evolving societal norms require a dynamic interpretation of laws to address new challenges.

The court emphasised that a narrow interpretation of “utterance” would allow many men to escape or walk away unhindered by consequences merely by using emails or social media to malign and insult women.

“Modern technology enables such offenses to be committed through digital means. The exhibition of an object is not limited to physical display but can occur via electronic devices,” the bench added.

The court clarified that its “prima facie” observations were focused on the appropriateness of the charges based on their intended interpretation and preliminary findings.