Remarks On Woman's "Body Structure" Constitute Sexual Harassment: Kerala High Court

Kochi, Kerala: The Kerala High Court has ruled that a comment on a woman’s “body structure” can constitute as a sexually coloured remark that would fall within the penal offence of sexual harassment. Justice A Badharudeen made the pronouncement while dismissing a petition filed by former Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) employee to quash the sexual harassment case against him filed by a female staffer of the same organisation.

Also Read | Honey Rose Case: Boby Chemmanur Taken Into Police Custody

The woman employee alleged that the accused had used vulgar language against her since 2013 and during 2016-17 he began sending objectionable messages and inappropriate voice calls. Despite complaints lodged against him to the KSEB and the police, the accused continued with the disrespectful behaviour, she had claimed.

Following, the accused was booked for the offences under sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the IPC and section 120(o) (causing nuisance through any means of communication by undesirable call, letter, writing, message) of the Kerala Police Act.

To revoke the case, the accused argued that mere reference to a person’s “nice body structure” could not be considered as a sexually colored remark under the purview of section 354A and 509 of the IPC and section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

Meanwhile, the prosecution and the complainant claimed that the calls and messages of the accused contained sexually coloured remarks that meant to harass and violate her modesty.

Also Read | AAP Leaders Stopped From Media Tour To Sheesh Mahal To Counter BJP’s ‘Luxury’ Claim

Agreeing with the prosecution’s claim, the Kerala High Court concluded that the offences under sections 354A and 509 of IPC and section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act were prima facie applicable. “The prosecution case is specifically made out, prima facie, to attract the offences alleged,” the court said in its January 6 order. The court dismissed the accused’s plea and affirmed prosecution’s stand, maintaining that the case against petitioner would proceed.