In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, the Bombay High Court declared that emails can be classified as "utterances," "gestures," and "exhibits" under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when it comes to offenses intended to violate a woman's privacy and dignity. The bench, comprising Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, affirmed that communications via email fall within the scope of IPC Section 509, which addresses words, gestures, or acts meant to insult a woman's modesty.
The ruling emerged as the Bombay High Court granted partial relief to a Mumbai resident by quashing part of a 2009 FIR against him. The FIR, filed with the cyber police, accused him of alleged sexual assault and criminal intimidation of a woman, who is now over 70 years old.
According to a report of TOI, HC, though, did not quash the part of the FIR that invoked prosecution for offence intended to invade a woman's privacy and outrage her modesty under Section 509 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form), based on emails to third persons. The emails, HC said, "are a personal attack on her dignity, poise and self-esteem".
Also Read| Mumbai: NMIMS Students Report Harassment Near Mithibai College and Vile Parle Station.
In interpreting Section 509, the Bombay High Court stated, "Insult can manifest as an intrusion upon a woman's privacy encroaching upon her personal space or violating her sense of privacy intentionally, in a manner that affronts her modesty." The court said that the purpose of the law is to prevent offenders from evading justice, asserting that "intent" is central to the offense. It concluded that the emails in question invaded the woman's privacy and "demonstrate his intent" to insult her modesty.
The High Court addressed allegations that emails containing the woman's personal details were shared without her consent. Citing a Supreme Court judgment on privacy, the HC ruled that such sharing, particularly among residents of the same society whom she encounters regularly, constitutes an affront to her dignity. The court also noted that the language in the emails could deprave and corrupt readers, potentially leading some to "conjure" a degrading image of her.