Body Shaming Alone not Insulting Modesty

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

A Single Judge Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, in Amrita M v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2026), quashed criminal proceedings under Section 509 IPC (Section 79 of BNS) against two women accused of body shaming and verbally abusing the complainant. The Court held that body shaming alone does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman. 

What was the Background of Amrita M v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• On 09.08.2023, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that three individuals, two girls and a boy, had verbally abused her and her friend in a public place. 
• The alleged remarks included name calling, fat shaming, body shaming, racist remarks and vulgar words. 
• The complainant further alleged that the accused were under the influence of alcohol when they yelled the abusive words at her. 
• An FIR was registered at Sadashivanagar Police Station against all three accused for the offence under Section 509 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed after investigation. 
• The boy (Accused No. 3) had earlier approached the High Court, and the proceedings against him were quashed. 
• The two girls (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) then approached the High Court through a criminal petition (CRL.P No. 4343 of 2026), seeking quashing of the proceedings against them. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Absence of Ingredients of Section 509 IPC: The Court held that the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material and statements of the complainant and witnesses did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 509 IPC. 
• On Body Shaming Not Amounting to Insulting Modesty: Having regard to the mandatory ingredients of Section 509 IPC, the Court observed that merely body shaming the complainant and insulting her about her physical appearance does not amount to the commission of the offence. 
• On the Doctrine of Parity: The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioners were identical, similar and common, arising from the very same incident, as those against the co-accused boy, whose proceedings had already been quashed. It therefore held that it would be just and proper to apply the doctrine of parity in favour of the petitioners as well. 
• Outcome: The criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings pending before the jurisdictional court against the petitioners were quashed.

What is the Offence of Insulting the Modesty of a Woman? 

Statutory Provision: 

• Section 509 IPC: Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, commits the offence. 
• Punishment: Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and fine. (The maximum term was enhanced from one year to three years by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.) 
• Corresponding Provision under BNS: Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) retains the same offence and punishment. 
• Since the incident in the present case took place in 2023, before the BNS came into force on 1st July 2024, the IPC continued to apply. 

Essential Ingredients: 

• There must be an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. 
• Such insult must be through:  
  • Uttering any word, making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object, intending that it be heard or seen by the woman, or 
  • Intruding upon the privacy of the woman. 
• Intention is the core ingredient. Mere use of abusive or offensive words, without the intent to insult the woman's modesty, does not attract the section. 

Meaning of Modesty: 

• The term "modesty" is not defined in the IPC or the BNS. 
• In State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1966), the Supreme Court held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. 
• In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill (1995), the Supreme Court held that the ultimate test for determining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. 
• In Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2004), the Supreme Court reiterated that the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter.