The Kerala High Court recently ruled that comments about a woman’s “body structure” would, prima facie, amount to insulting her modesty and constitute sexual harassment, under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (R Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors.).
In the case, the accused, R Ramachandran Nair, a sub-engineer, had commented that the complainant’s “body structure was fine.” The woman, employed as a Senior Assistant at the Kerala State Electricity Board, filed a complaint accusing Nair of making inappropriate remarks and sending sexually suggestive messages to her mobile phone.
Justice A. Badharudeen, in his judgment delivered on January 6, observed that such comments were sexually colored and could be classified as sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC (punishment for making sexually colored remarks) and Section 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). The Court also highlighted the continuous nature of the alleged harassment, which involved public insults and private harassment through messages and calls despite the complainant raising multiple complaints to superiors.
The accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him, argued that his remarks could not be considered sexually colored and did not warrant the alleged charges. However, the Court rejected this argument, finding that the remarks about the complainant’s body would prima facie attract the offenses of sexual harassment and insulting modesty as laid out in the IPC.
The Court further noted that the accused’s pattern of behavior, including sending suggestive messages, pointed to an ongoing course of sexual harassment, which was also covered under the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings, allowing the case to proceed. The accused’s actions were found to be prima facie in violation of laws protecting a woman’s dignity and modesty.
The accused was represented by advocate P Mohamed Sabah, while Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth represented the State. The complainant was represented by advocate Vinay Vijay Shanker.
