Important comment of Delhi High Court( Delhi High Court )

New Delhi. The Delhi High Court  ( Delhi High Court ) has set aside an order prosecuting a man for calling a woman a ‘dirty woman’, saying that insulting or behaving rudely with a woman and not behaving in a dignified manner is a violation of her modesty. It will not be said to dissolve. The High Court also stated that gender-specific legislation is not directed against people of the opposite sex, but is aimed at dealing with the unique issues faced by a person of a particular gender.

The court said that the fact that a part of a law is gender-specific should not be taken to mean that the judge’s neutral role also changes and he (judge) becomes gender-biased. . It further said that irrespective of the gender-specific nature of a law, judicial duty fundamentally requires unwavering neutrality and impartiality. The High Court said, “Gender-specific legislation is meant to address the unique concerns and challenges of particular genders within society. However, this does not mean that a judge should be influenced or inclined towards gender-related factors when judging, unless specific assumptions are made in favor of a particular gender in the law.

Fair and equitable treatment of all parties regardless of gender
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said, ‘In short, judicial neutrality is an essential pillar of the legal system, which (neutrality) ensures that all parties are treated fairly and equitably, regardless of gender.’ Setting aside the trial court’s order framing charges under section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to outrage the modesty of a woman) of IPC, it noted that a prima facie case was made out against the person.

The complainant woman had accused her senior partner
The case of the prosecution was that the complainant woman and the accused worked in the same organization and the accused person was senior to the complainant. It was alleged that when the woman refused to give him Rs 1,000, he used abusive language against her and called her a ‘dirty woman’. The court noted that there is no evidence of any behavior on the part of the person to show that the accused was involved in any unwelcome social conduct, but it is at most a case of disturbing remarks which have been appropriately unwelcome by the complainant. may be considered.