Commenting on a woman’s physique with the word ‘fine’ could now be considered sexual harassment. On Monday (January 6), the Kerala High Court ruled.
That such a remark constitutes sexual harassment at first sight. The Court upheld an FIR against a petitioner accused of this behaviour. Kerala High Court Justice A. Badruddin declined to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who was accused under Sections 354A (1) (iv), 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 120 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
Section 354A classifies sexually indecent remarks as sexual harassment, while Section 509 addresses acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Section 120 of the Kerala Police Act outlines punishments for creating a nuisance and disturbing public order.
What is the case?
According to Live Law, a woman claimed that while she was working in the electrical section of Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, the accused looked at her and commented ‘fine’, which she interpreted as a remark on her figure.
She felt his comment was sexually suggestive and that he was harassing her. The woman also alleged that the accused sent her messages containing sexual innuendo.
What argument did the accused give?
The accused countered the allegations, arguing that complimenting someone’s physique is not sexual harassment and therefore cannot be an offence under Section 354A (1) (iv) or 509 of the IPC or the provisions of the Kerala Police Act.
The High Court then reviewed these offences in detail. Citing its previous judgement in XXXX vs State of Kerala (2024), which addressed offences under Section 509, the court stated, “If anyone says anything, makes a sound, gestures or shows anything with the intention of insulting a woman or intruding into her privacy, then it would be an offence under Section 509 of the IPC. Looking at the allegations of the prosecution, the aspects of the crime under Section 509 of the IPC are prima facie made out.”
Why did the court consider it a crime
Regarding Section 354A, the court emphasised that any man making sexually suggestive comments to a woman is guilty of sexual harassment. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument, stating, “After looking at the facts of the case, it is clear that the prosecution’s case, at first sight, supports the alleged offences.”
Furthermore, the court clarified that under Section 120, any act causing inconvenience or annoyance through repeated, unsolicited, or anonymous calls, letters, writings, messages, emails, or any other means of communication would be considered an offence. The court deemed this section entirely applicable to the facts of the case.