Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8513     OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.31592 of 2008)

The Deputy Inspector General  of Police & Anr. …..Appellants

versus

S. Samuthiram      ….. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Eve-Teasing  is  a  euphemism,  a  conduct  which  attracts  penal  

action but it is seen, only in one State, a Statute has been enacted,  

that is State of Tamil Nadu to contain the same, the consequence of  

which may at times drastic.  Eve-teasing led to the death of a woman  

in the year 1998 in the State of Tamil Nadu which led the Government  

bringing  an  ordinance,  namely,  the  Tami  Nadu  Prohibition  of  Eve-

Teasing  Ordinance,  1998,  which  later  became an  Act,  namely,  the  

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Act, 1998 [for short ‘the Eve-

Page 2

2

Teasing Act’].   The Statement  of  Objects  and Reasons of  the Eve-

Teasing Act reads as follows:

“Eve-teasing  in  public  places  has  been  a  perennial  problem.   Recently,  incidents  of  eve-teasing leading to  serious  injuries  to,  and  even  death  of  a  woman  have  come to the notice of the Government.  The Government  are of the view that eve-teasing is a menace to society as  a whole and has to be eradicated.  With this in view, the  Government decided to prohibit eve-teasing in the State  of Tamil Nadu.

2. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition  of  Eve-teasing Ordinance,  1998 (Tamil  Nadu Ordinance  No. 4 of 1998) was promulgated by the Governor and the  same  was  published  in  the  Tamil  Nadu  Government  Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 30th July, 1998.

3. The Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance.”

3. We are in this case concerned with a situation where a member  

of the law enforcement agency, a police personnel, himself was caught  

in the act of eve-teasing of a married woman leading to criminal and  

disciplinary  proceeding,  ending  in  his  dismissal  from  service,  the  

legality of which is the subject matter of this appeal.   

4. The  respondent  herein,  while  he  was  on  duty  at   the  Armed  

Reserve, Palayamkottai was deputed for Courtallam season Bandobust  

duty on 9.7.1999 and he reported for duty on that date at 8.30 PM at  

the Courtallam Season Police out post.  At about 11.00 PM he visited

Page 3

3

the Tenkasi bus stand in a drunken state and misbehaved and eve-

teased a married lady, who was waiting along with her husband, to  

board a bus.  The respondent approached that lady with a dubious  

intention and threatened both husband and wife stating that he would  

book a case against the husband unless the lady accompanied him.  

Further, he had disclosed his identity as a police man.  Both husband  

and wife got panic  and complained to a police man,  namely,  Head  

Constable  Adiyodi  (No.1368)  who  was  standing  along  with  Head  

Constable Peter (No.1079) of Tenkasi Police Station on the opposite  

side of the bus-stand.  They were on night duty at the bus stand.  

They rushed to the spot and took the respondent into custody and  

brought him to Tenkasi Police Station along with the husband and wife.  

Following that, a complaint No.625/1999 was registered on 10.7.1999  

at that Police Station against the respondent under Section 509 of the  

Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Eve-teasing Act.  On  

10.7.1999,  at  about  1.25  hrs.,  the  respondent  was  taken  to  the  

Government Hospital Tenkasi for medical examination.  There he was  

examined  by  Dr.  N.  Rajendran,  who  issued  a  Certificate  of  

Drunkenness, which reads as follows:

Page 4

4

“Symptoms at the time of examination:

Breath smell  of alcohol, Eye congested, Retina expanded,  

sluggish  reaction  to  light,  speech  and  activities  normal,  

pulse rate 96, Blood pressure 122/85.  I am of opinion that  

the above person:

(i) consumed alcohol but is not under its influence.   

Station: Tenkasi Name: N. Rajendran Date: 10.07.1999 (Sd/- dt.10.07.1999)

Civil Surgeon

I am not willing to undergo blood and urine test.

Sd/- S. Samuthiram, PC 388”

5. The  respondent  was  then  placed  under  suspension  from  

10.7.1999  (FN)  as  per  DO.1360/1999  in  C.No.P1/34410/1999  vide  

order dated 18.7.1999 and departmental  proceedings were initiated  

under  Rule  3(b)  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Police  Subordinate  Service  

(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (in short ‘Tamil  Nadu Service  

Rules’) for his highly reprehensible conduct in behaving in a disorderly  

manner to a married lady in a drunken state at Tenkasi bus stand on  

9.7.1999.  Further, it was also noticed that he was absent from duty  

from 07.00 hrs on 10.7.1999 to 03.45 hrs.  

Page 5

5

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Tiruneveli,  

conducted  a  detailed  domestic  enquiry  and  after  examining  ten  

prosecution witnesses and perusing fourteen prosecution documents  

and  after  hearing  the  defence  witnesses,  submitted  a  report  dated  

22.11.1999  finding  all  the  charges  proved  against  the  delinquent  

respondent.   The Superintendent of Police,  Tiruneveli  after carefully  

perusing the enquiry report dismissed the respondent from service on  

4.1.2000.

7. The  respondent,  aggrieved  by  the  dismissal  order,  filed  O.A.  

No.1144  of  2000  before  the  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative  Tribunal,  

Chennai.  While the O.A. was pending before the Tribunal, the Judicial  

Magistrate, Tenkasi rendered the judgment in S.T.C No.613 of 2000 on  

20.11.2000  acquitting  the  respondent  of  all  the  charges.   The  

judgment  of  the  Criminal  Court  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  

Tribunal  and  it  was  submitted  that,  on  the  same set  of  facts,  the  

delinquent be not proceeded within the departmental proceeding.  The  

judgment of this Court in  Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold   

Mines Ltd. and Another (1999) 3 SCC 679 was also placed before  

the Tribunal in support of that contention.

Page 6

6

8. The  Tribunal  noticed  that  both,  husband  and  wife,  deposed  

before  the  Enquiry  Officer  that  the  respondent  had  committed  the  

offence,  which  was  supported  by  the  other  prosecution  witnesses,  

including the two policemen who took the respondent in custody from  

the place of incident.  Consequently, the Tribunal took the view that no  

reliance could be placed on the judgment of the criminal court.  The  

O.A.  was  accordingly  dismissed  by  the  Tribunal  vide  order  dated  

23.3.2004.  The order was challenged by the respondent in a Writ  

Petition No.13726 of 2004 before the High Court of Madras.  The High  

Court  took  the  view  that  if  a  criminal  case  and  departmental  

proceedings against an official are based on the same set of facts and  

evidence and the criminal case ended in an honourable acquittal and  

not  on  technical  grounds,  imposing  punishment  of  removal  of  the  

delinquent  official  from service,  based  on  the  findings  of  domestic  

enquiry would not be legally sustainable.  The High Court also took the  

view that the version of the doctor who was examined as PW8 and Ext.  

P-4 certificate issued by him,  could not  be considered  as  sufficient  

material  to  hold  the  respondent  guilty  and  that  he  had  consumed  

alcohol, but was found normal and had no adverse influence of alcohol.  

The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and set aside the  

impugned order dismissing him from service.  It was further ordered

Page 7

7

that the respondent be reinstated with continuity of service forthwith,  

with back wages from the date of acquittal in the criminal case, till  

payment.

9. The State, aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this appeal  

by special leave through the Deputy Inspector General of Police.   

10. Shri  C.  Paramasivam,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant, submitted that the High Court was not justified in interfering  

with disciplinary proceedings and setting aside the order of dismissal  

of the respondent.   Learned counsel submitted that the High Court  

overlooked the fact that the standard of proof in a domestic enquiry  

and criminal enquiry is different.  The mere acquittal by the criminal  

Court does not entitle the delinquent for exonerating in the disciplinary  

proceedings.  Learned counsel also submitted that the case in hand is  

not  where  punishment  of  dismissal  was  imposed  on  the  basis  of  

conviction in a criminal trial and only, in such situation, acquittal by a  

Court in a criminal trial would have some relevance.  Further, it was  

also pointed out  that,  in  the instant  case,  the respondent  was not  

honourably acquitted by the criminal Court, but was acquitted since  

complainant turned hostile.  

Page 8

8

11. Shri  V.  N.  Subramaniam,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent,  supported  the  findings  recorded  by  the  High  Court.  

Learned counsel  submitted  that  the judgment  of  the criminal  court  

acquitting  the  respondent  has  to  be  construed  as  an  honourable  

acquittal and that the respondent cannot be proceeded with on the  

same set  of  facts  on  which  he  was  acquitted  by  a  criminal  court.  

Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in  

Capt. M. Paul case (supra).

12. We may first  deal  with the departmental  proceedings initiated  

against the respondent.     

DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDINGS:

13. We may indicate  that  the  following were  the  charges  levelled  

against the respondent in the departmental proceedings and a charge  

memo dated 24.8.1999 was served on the respondent:

(i) Reprehensible conduct in having behaved in a disorderly  

manner in a drunkenness mood at Tenkasi Bus-stand on  

9.7.1999 at 23.00 hrs.

Page 9

9

(ii) Highly  reprehensible  conduct  in  eve-teasing  Pitchammal  

(44/1999)  W/o.  Vanamamalai  of  Padmaneri  in  the  

presence of her husband and having approached her with a  

dubious intention on 9.7.1999 at 23.00 hrs. and thereby  

getting involved in a criminal case in Tenkasi P.S. Cr. No.  

625/1999  under  Section  509  IPC  and  Section  4  of  the  

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Ordinance Act, 1998  

and

(iii) Highly reprehensible conduct in having absented from duty  

from 10.7.1999 at 07.00 hrs onward till 03.45 hrs.

14. The charges were inquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of  

Police,  Armed  Reserve  Tirunelveli.   The  prosecution  examined  ten  

witnesses and fourteen documents were produced. On the side of the  

defence,  D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 were examined.   After  examining the  

witnesses on either side and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the  

Enquiry Officer found all the three charges proved beyond reasonable  

doubt.   P.Ws. 4 and 5, who were Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi of  

Tenkasi  Police  Station  and  Head  Constable  1079  Peter  of  Tenkasi  

Police Station, clearly narrated the entire incident and the involvement  

of the respondent, so also PW 6, the Head Constable of Tenkasi Police

Page 10

10

Station.    The  Enquiry  Officer  clearly  concluded  that  the  evidence  

tendered  by  the  prosecution  witnesses  P.Ws.  4,  5  and  6  and  

prosecution documents  3,  4  and 5 would clearly  prove the various  

charges levelled against him.  The Medical Officer of the Government  

Hospital  had also certified that the delinquent had consumed liquor  

and he was not cooperating for urine and blood tests.  The Enquiry  

Officer also found that the delinquent ought to have reported for duty  

at  the  out-post  station  on  10.7.1999  at  07.00  hrs.  as  per  the  

instruction given to him on 9.7.1999 at 20.30 hrs., while he reported  

for  courtallam  season  Bandobust  duty  at  season  out-post  police  

station.  But, it was found that the delinquent had failed to report for  

duty.  Further, he had also indulged in the activity of eve-teasing a  

married woman.  After finding the delinquent respondent guilty of all  

the  charges,  the  Enquiry  Officer  submitted  its  report  dated  

22.11.1999.  The Superintendant of Police, Tirunelveli concurred with  

the findings of  the Enquiry  Officer  and held that  the charges  were  

clearly  proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt.   It  was  held  that  the  

respondent  being a member  of  a  disciplined force  should not  have  

behaved in a disorderly manner and that too in a drunken state, in a  

public place, and misbehaving with a married woman.  It was held that  

the said conduct of the respondent would undermine the morale of the

Page 11

11

police force, consequently, the Superintendant of Police awarded the  

punishment  of  dismissal  from  service  on  the  respondent,  vide  its  

proceeding  dated  4.1.2000.   The  respondent  then  filed  an  appeal  

before the Inspector  General  of  Police,  which was rejected vide his  

proceeding dated 10.3.2000.  Respondent then filed an application in  

O.A. No. 1144 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.  

While O.A. was pending, the delinquent was acquitted of the criminal  

charges.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS:

15. We  have  indicated  that  a  criminal  case  was  also  registered  

against the respondent by the Tenkasi Police Station being Crime No.  

625/1999 under Section 509 IPC and Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act,  

1998, which was registered as STC 613 of 2002 before the Judicial  

Magistrate, Tenkasi.  Before the Criminal Court, PW 1 and PW 2, the  

husband and the wife (victim) turned hostile.  Prosecution then did not  

take steps to examine the rest of the prosecution witnesses.  Head  

Constable (No.1368) Adiyodi and Head Constable (No.1079) Peter of  

Tenkasi  Police  Station  were  crucial  witnesses.   Facts  would  clearly  

indicate that it was the above mentioned Head Constables who took  

the respondent to Tenkasi Police Station along with P.Ws. 1 and 2,

Page 12

12

though P.Ws. 1 and 2 had clearly deposed before the Enquiry Officer of  

the entire incident including the fact that the above mentioned two  

Head Constables had taken the respondent along with P.Ws.1 and 2 to  

the Tenkasi Police Station.  The Criminal Court took the view that since  

P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 turned hostile, the criminal case got weakened.  

The prosecution, it may be noted also took no step to examine the  

Head Constables by name 1368 Adiyodi  and 1079 Peter  of Tenkasi  

Police Station, so also the Doctor P.W.8 before the criminal Court.  It  

was under such circumstances that the criminal Court took the view  

that  there  is  no  evidence  to  implicate  the  respondent-accused,  

consequently, he was found not guilty under Section 509 IPC read with  

Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act and was, therefore, acquitted.

16. We may indicate that before the order of acquittal was passed by  

the  Criminal  Court  on  20.11.2000,  the  Departmental  Enquiry  was  

completed  and  the  respondent  was  dismissed  from  service  on  

4.1.2000.  The question is when the departmental enquiry has been  

concluded resulting in the dismissal of the delinquent from service, the  

subsequent  finding  recorded  by  the  Criminal  Court  acquitting  the  

respondent  delinquent,  will  have  any  effect  on  the  departmental  

proceedings.   The  propositions  which  the  respondent  wanted  to

Page 13

13

canvass placing reliance on the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony  

case (supra) read as follows:

“(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a  criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar  in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal  case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the  charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee  is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of  law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental  proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case  is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law  are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of  offence,  the  nature  of  the  case  launched  against  the  employee on the basis of evidence and material collected  against  him  during  investigation  or  as  reflected  in  the  charge-sheet.

(iv)  The  factors  mentioned  at  (ii)  and  (iii)  above  cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental  proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that  the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(v) If  the  criminal  case  does  not  proceed  or  its  disposal  is  being  unduly  delayed,  the  departmental  proceedings,  even if  they were stayed on account of the  pendency  of  the  criminal  case,  can  be  resumed  and  proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so  that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be  vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration  may get rid of him at the earliest.”

17. This  Court,  in  Southern  Railway  Officers’  Association  v.   

Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24, held that acquittal in a criminal case

Page 14

14

by  itself  cannot  be  a  ground  for  interfering  with  an  order  of  

punishment  imposed  by  the  Disciplinary  Authority.   The  Court  

reiterated that order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent  

officer had been acquitted of the criminal charge.

18. In  State Bank of Hyderabad v. P.Kata Rao (2008) 15 SCC  

657, this Court held that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that  

the jurisdiction of the superior Courts in interfering with the finding of  

fact arrived at by the Enquiring Officer is limited and that the High  

Court  would  also  ordinarily  not  interfere  with  the  quantum  of  

punishment  and  there  cannot  be  any  doubt  or  dispute  that  only  

because  the  delinquent  employee  who  was  also  facing  a  criminal  

charge  stands  acquitted,  the  same,  by  itself,  would  not  debar  the  

disciplinary  authority  in  initiating  a  fresh  departmental  proceeding  

and/or  where  the  departmental  proceedings  had  already  been  

initiated, to continue therewith.  In that judgment, this Court further  

held as follows:

“The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on  the  same  set  of  facts  the  delinquent  shall  not  be  proceeded  in  a  departmental  proceedings  and  in  a  criminal  case  simultaneously,  has,  however,  been  deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul  Anthony  v.  Bharat  Gold  Mines  Ltd.  and

Page 16

16

We fail to see, why the Prosecution had not examined Head Constables  

1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station.  It was these  

two  Head  Constables  who  took  the  respondent  from  the  scene  of  

occurrence along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife, to the Tenkasi  

Police  Station  and  it  is  in  their  presence  that  the  complaint  was  

registered.   In  fact,  the  criminal  court  has  also  opined  that  the  

signature  of  PW  1  (husband  –  complainant)  is  found  in  Ex.P1  –  

Complaint.  Further, the Doctor P.W.8 has also clearly stated before  

the Enquiry  Officer  that  the respondent was under the influence of  

liquor and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests.  That  

being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was  

not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact  

that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses  

were not examined.   

Honourable Acquittal

21. The meaning of the expression ‘honourable acquittal’ came up for  

consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of  

India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541.  In  

that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4)  

dealing  with  honourable  acquittal  by  a  criminal  court  on  the

Page 17

17

disciplinary  proceedings.   In  that  context,  this  Court  held  that  the  

mere  acquittal  does  not  entitle  an  employee  to  reinstatement  in  

service,  the  acquittal,  it  was  held,  has  to  be  honourable.   The  

expressions  ‘honourable  acquittal’,  ‘acquitted  of  blame’,  ‘fully  

exonerated’  are unknown to the Code of  Criminal  Procedure or the  

Penal  Code,  which  are  coined  by  judicial  pronouncements.   It  is  

difficult  to  define  precisely  what  is  meant  by  the  expression  

‘honourably  acquitted’.   When  the  accused  is  acquitted  after  full  

consideration of  prosecution evidence and that  the prosecution had  

miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it  

can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

22. In  R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787, it was  

held  even  in  the  case  of  acquittal,  departmental  proceedings  may  

follow  where  the  acquittal  is  other  than  honourable.   In  State  of  

Assam and another v. Raghava Rajgopalachari reported in 1972  

SLR 45, this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord  

Williams, J. in (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168 which is as follows:

“The expression “honourably acquitted” is one which is  unknown to court of justice.  Apparently it is a form of  order  used  in  courts  martial  and  other  extra  judicial  tribunals.  We said in our judgment that we accepted the  explanation given by the appellant believed it to be true

Page 18

18

and considered that it ought to have been accepted by  the  Government  authorities  and  by  the  magistrate.  Further,  we  decided  that  the  appellant  had  not  misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge.  It  is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the  appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was  possible  for  him to  be acquitted.   Presumably,  this  is  equivalent  to  what  Government  authorities  term  ‘honourably acquitted’”.

23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in  

the  service  rule  for  reinstatement,  if  an  employee  is  honourably  

acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to  

claim any benefit including reinstatement.  Reason is that the standard  

of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and  

the enquiry  conducted by way of  disciplinary  proceeding is  entirely  

different.  In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the  

accused  is  on  the  prosecution  and  if  it  fails  to  establish  the  guilt  

beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent.  It is  

settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in  

a  criminal  court  is  not  required  in  a  disciplinary  proceedings  and  

preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.  There may be cases where  

a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up  

other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc.  In  

the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many

Page 19

19

of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his  

wife turned hostile.  The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving  

the benefit of doubt.  We are not prepared to say in the instant case,  

the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal  court  and  

even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil  

Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.

24. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide  

that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under  

suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated.  In  

such cases,  the  re-instatement  is  automatic.   There  may be cases  

where the service rules provide in spite of domestic  enquiry,  if  the  

criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated.  

In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in  

service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules  

contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of  

right.    Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules.

25. In view of the above mentioned circumstances,  we are of the  

view  that  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  setting  aside  the  

punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as against the

Page 20

20

respondent,  in  its  limited  jurisdiction  under  Article  226  of  the  

Constitution of India.   

26. We may, in the facts and circumstances of this case, wish to add  

some aspects which are also of considerable public importance.  We  

notice that there is no uniform law in this country to curb eve-teasing  

effectively in or within the precinct of educational institutions, places of  

worship, bus stands, metro-stations, railway stations, cinema theatres,  

parks, beaches, places of festival, public service vehicles or any other  

similar place.  Eve-teasing generally occurs in public places which, with  

a little effort, can be effectively curbed.  Consequences of not curbing  

such a menace, needless to say, at times disastrous.  There are many  

instances  where  girls  of  young  age  are  being  harassed,  which  

sometimes  may  lead  to  serious  psychological  problems  and  even  

committing suicide.  Every citizen in this country has right to live with  

dignity  and honour  which is  a  fundamental  right  guaranteed  under  

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  Sexual harassment like eve-  

teasing  of  women amounts  to  violation of  rights  guaranteed  under  

Articles  14,  15  as  well.     We  notice  in  the  absence  of  effective  

legislation to contain eve-teasing, normally, complaints are registered  

under Section 294 or Section 509 IPC.   

Page 21

21

27. Section 294 says that “Whoever, to the annoyance of others- (a)  

does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters  

any obscene song; ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall  

be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which  

may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both”.   

28. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused committed any  

obscene act or the accused sang, recited or uttered any obscene song;  

ballad or words and this was done in or near a public place, it was of  

obscene nature and that it had caused annoyance to others.  Normally,  

it is very difficult to establish those facts and, seldom, complaints are  

being  filed  and  criminal  cases  will  take years  and  years  and often  

people  get  away  with  no  punishment  and  filing  complaint  and  to  

undergo a criminal trial itself is an agony for the complainant, over and  

above, the extreme physical or mental agony already suffered.   

29. Section 509 IPC says, “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,  shall  be  punished  with

Page 22

22

simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with  

fine or with both”.

30. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused had  

uttered the words or made the sound or gesture and that such word,  

sound or gesture was intended by the accused to be heard or seen by  

some woman.   Normally, it is difficult to establish this and, seldom,  

woman files complaints and often the wrong doers are left unpunished  

even  if  complaint  is  filed  since  there  is  no  effective  mechanism to  

monitor and follow up such acts.  The necessity of a proper legislation  

to curb eve-teasing is of extreme importance, even the Tamil Nadu  

Legislation has no teeth.   

31. Eve teasing today has become pernicious, horrid and disgusting  

practice.   The  Indian  Journal  of  Criminology  and  Criminalistics  

(January-June 1995 Edn.) has categorized eve teasing into five heads  

viz. (1) verbal eve teasing; (2) physical eve teasing; (3) psychological  

harassment;  (4)  sexual  harassment;  and  (5)  harassment  through  

some  objects.   In  Vishaka  and  Others  v.  State  of  Rajasthan;  

(1977)  6  SCC 241,  this  Court  has  laid  down certain  guidelines  on  

sexual harassments.  In  Rupan Deol Bajaj and Another v. K.P.S.   

Gill;  (1995)  6  SCC 194,  this  Court  has  explained  the  meaning  of

Page 23

23

‘modesty’ in relation to women.  More and more girl students, women  

etc.  go  to  educational  institutions,  work  places  etc.  and  their  

protection is of extreme importance to a civilized and cultured society.  

The experiences of women and girl  children in over-crowded buses,  

metros, trains etc. are horrendous and a painful ordeal.   

32. The Parliament is currently considering the Protection of Woman  

against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010, which is intended  

to protect female workers in most workplaces.  Provisions of that Bill  

are  not  sufficient  to  curb eve-teasing.   Before  undertaking suitable  

legislation to curb eve-teasing, it is necessary to take at least some  

urgent measures so that it can be curtailed to some extent.  In public  

interest, we are therefore inclined to give the following directions:

(1) All the State Governments and Union Territories are directed to  

depute plain clothed female police officers in the precincts of bus-

stands  and  stops,  railway  stations,  metro  stations,  cinema  

theatres, shopping malls, parks, beaches, public service vehicles,  

places of worship etc. so as to monitor and supervise incidents of  

eve-teasing.

(2) There will  be a further direction to the State Government and  

Union Territories to install CCTV in strategic positions which itself

Page 24

24

would  be  a  deterrent  and  if  detected,  the  offender  could  be  

caught.

(3) Persons  in-charge  of  the  educational  institutions,  places  of  

worship, cinema theatres, railway stations, bus-stands have to  

take steps as they deem fit to prevent eve-teasing, within their  

precincts and, on a complaint being made, they must pass on the  

information to the nearest  police station or the Women’s Help  

Centre.

(4) Where  any  incident  of  eve-teasing  is  committed  in  a  public  

service vehicle either by the passengers or the persons in charge  

of  the vehicle,  the crew of  such vehicle  shall,  on a complaint  

made by the aggrieved person, take such vehicle to the nearest  

police station and give information to the police.  Failure to do so  

should lead to cancellation of the permit to ply.

(5) State  Governments  and  Union  Territories  are  directed  to  

establish Women’ Helpline in various cities and towns, so as to  

curb eve-teasing within three months.

(6) Suitable boards cautioning such act of eve-teasing be exhibited in  

all  public  places  including precincts  of  educational  institutions,

Page 25

25

bus stands, railway stations,  cinema theatres,  parks,  beaches,  

public service vehicles, places of worship etc.   

(7) Responsibility  is  also  on  the  passers-by  and  on  noticing  such  

incident, they should also report the same to the nearest police  

station  or  to  Women  Helpline  to  save  the  victims  from  such  

crimes.

(8) The State Governments and Union Territories of India would take  

adequate and effective measures by issuing suitable instructions  

to the concerned authorities including the District Collectors and  

the District Superintendent of Police so as to take effective and  

proper measures to curb such incidents of eve-teasing.   

33. The Appeal is accordingly allowed with the above directions and  

the judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there will be no  

order as to costs.   

…………………………………..J.   (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

…………………………………..J.

Page 26

26

         (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, November  30, 2012