IN A SIGNIFICANT AND MUCH-NEEDED PRONOUNCEMENT, a Delhi court, through Judicial Magistrate First Class (‘JMFC’) Harjot Singh Aujla of Dwarka courts, reaffirmed the legal and moral stance that the use of the term “r***i” (a derogatory Hindi term referring to a sex worker) directed at a woman constitutes an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). The judgment makes a clear and reasoned articulation that such words are not mere insults — they are gendered, sexually loaded, and intended to attack the dignity, character, and modesty of a woman.
The Court observed, “the word is not a word which is used simply to insult a person. The word is bound to insult the modesty of any hardworking woman. Especially, when this word is used to a woman, it denotes that the said woman is not loyal and also shows that the word is intended to mean that the woman is promiscuous and it casts an aspersion on her character.”
While the term “modesty” in common English usage may denote honesty, truthfulness, humility, and self-respect, its meaning under Section 509 of the IPCcarries a distinct legal and gendered connotation. For the purposes of this provision, modesty refers specifically to a woman’s sexual dignity and sanctity — a recognition of her bodily autonomy and the respect she is entitled to in relation to her sexual personhood.
Every woman possesses an inherent sense of self-worth concerning her body, particularly her sexual and reproductive identity. This personal dignity is not merely individual, it is also reflected and reinforced by the expectations of a civilised society, which recognises and upholds the sanctity of a woman’s body. The law acknowledges that women, by virtue of the patriarchal structures they navigate daily, are often sexually vulnerable, subjected to words and actions intended to shame, humiliate, or assert control over them. It is this vulnerability that Section 509 IPC is designed to protect. The provision exists not to moralise, but to protect a woman’s right to live free from verbal sexual aggression, from derogatory gestures or remarks that violate her sense of safety, honour, and self.
The judgment makes a clear and reasoned articulation that such words are not mere insults — they are gendered, sexually loaded, and intended to attack the dignity, character, and modesty of a woman.
Section 509 IPC
Section 509 IPC criminalises “words, gesture, sound, or object intended to insult the modesty of a woman, or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman” carrying a punishment of simple imprisonment which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
Definition of modesty
The 1933 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary defines modesty as “womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct, reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions.”
The Supreme Court in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2004) noted that “the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex”, meaning that modesty is an attribute inherently linked to a woman by virtue of her gender. It further clarified that the ultimate test to determine whether modesty has been outraged is to assess whether the act of the accused is such that it could shock the sense of decency of a woman, keeping in mind that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The court in State of Punjab vs Major Singh (1966) interpreted ‘modesty’ as an attribute of the female sex that exists from birth, regardless of age.
Ingredients of Section 509 IPC
To constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, there must be a clear and deliberate intention to insult the modesty of a woman or to intrude upon her privacy. This intention must be directed to ensure that the offending gesture or object is seen by the woman, or that the offending words or sound uttered, are heard or perceived by her. The mere existence of offensive language or gestures, without this element of intention and directness, is not sufficient to attract the provision.
What brings the act within the ambit of Section 509 is the conscious targeting of the woman, with the purpose that she witnesses the gesture or object, or hears the words or sound, thereby causing her distress or humiliation. Modesty is not outraged in the abstract — it is violated when a woman is made to feel humiliated, unsafe, or demeaned by words, gestures, sound or object that are specifically directed at her and intended to breach her sense of personal dignity. To attract Section 509, it must be established that the modesty of a specific woman or readily identifiable group of women has been insulted, i.e., the offense requires a clear target of the insult. The intention of outraging a woman's modesty is an important element in determining whether the offence under the said section has been committed.
Slapping a woman on her posterior amounted to outraging her modesty under Section 354 IPC, demonstrating that even gestures and innuendo count as violations of dignity. Any act that is an affront to the decency and dignity of a woman, even if seemingly trivial, could be considered an offense under Section 509 if it is intended to insult her modesty.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty including the right to live with dignity, which extends to protection from verbal sexual abuse. Articles 14 and 15(3) empower the State to enact special provisions to safeguard women’s rights and equality. When a woman is called with terms like “r***i,” it’s not just about being rude, it goes beyond mere insult, it constitutes a direct assault on her constitutional identity as an equal citizen, often aimed to shame her into silence or coerce her into submission, thereby exerting control over her autonomy.
The Court in the present case, didn’t view the insult as a mere rude remark. It recognized the weight words like “r***i” carry in our social fabric. These aren’t just casual abuses. They are often used to question a woman’s character, control her sexuality, and reassert male dominance. The judgment reflects an understanding of the deeper, gendered meanings that such language carry.
The Court in the present case, didn’t view the insult as a mere rude remark. It recognized the weight words like “r***i” carry in our social fabric.
De-normalizing digital misogyny
Sexually abusive language causes real emotional and psychological harm, and the Court’s acknowledgement of such slurs as a form of psychological violence aligns with global perspectives on gender-based harm. These vulgar terms, whether used in speech, media, or online platforms, constitutes a direct assault on a woman’s sexual integrity and a grave violation of her dignity. These are not harmless insults but deliberate ways of humiliation and control. And calling them out for what they are is a crucial step toward gender justice.
In the digital age, with platforms like X (Twitter), Instagram, YouTube, and WhatsApp, flooded with sexist remarks, rude comments, and abusive speech, it is more important than ever to implement section 509 IPC in a stronger and stricter manner. Gendered verbal abuse is not a trivial offence, but a serious violation of a woman's dignity. Courts and law enforcement agencies must treat such abuse with the gravity it deserves, invoking provisions like Section 67 of the IT Act for obscene content and Section 354A IPC for sexual harassment, particularly in cases of online stalking or character assassination. Long term change requires public sensitisation through cinema, advertising, school curricula and social campaigns to de-normalise derogatory language used against women.
Conclusion
The Delhi court’s verdict is not just about convicting one man. It is about reclaiming the right of women to live without being constantly demeaned, degraded, or humiliated. This judgment brings us a step closer to building a jurisprudence that treats verbal misogyny as a form of violence, and not just bad manners. It also reminds us that until the law takes every gendered verbal abuse seriously, women in India will continue to bear the brunt of everyday, normalised abuse.