Karnataka High Court: 'Looking Inappropriately' Not BNS Sexual Favours

• The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of sexual harassment, including demanding sexual favours.
• Justice Suraj Govindaraj ruled that merely looking inappropriately at a woman does not, by itself, constitute a demand for sexual favours under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.
• The complainant in the case, Hafeez Khasim v State of Karnataka, had disowned most of her initial allegations, leaving only the claim of inappropriate looking.
• The ruling clarifies the narrow interpretation of the 'demand or request for sexual favours' provision within India's new criminal code.
• This decision sets a precedent for the evidentiary requirements in sexual harassment cases involving non-verbal conduct.

This ruling from the Karnataka High Court provides significant clarity on the narrow interpretation of 'demand for sexual favours' under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, establishing that merely looking inappropriately does not suffice for the offense.

The Karnataka High Court recently intervened in a case, quashing criminal proceedings that had been initiated against an individual accused of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The ruling, delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, centered on the interpretation of what constitutes a 'demand for sexual favours' under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

The case, identified as Hafeez Khasim v State of Karnataka, involved a petitioner who faced multiple charges. The initial First Information Report (FIR) included allegations under Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS, which specifically addresses the demand or request for sexual favours. Additionally, the petitioner was accused of making sexually coloured remarks under Section 75(1)(iv), criminal intimidation under Section 351(2), and intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace under Section 352 of the BNS. The complainant had initially alleged that the petitioner sought sexual favours from her, accompanied by a promise, though the specifics of that promise were not detailed.

Crucially, the court noted a significant shift in the complainant's testimony during the proceedings. It was observed that the woman had subsequently retracted or disowned the majority of her initial allegations. What remained as the primary accusation was merely that the accused man had looked at her in an inappropriate manner. This narrowed scope of the complaint became the focal point for the High Court's decision regarding the applicability of the sexual harassment provisions.

The core of this ruling lies in the interpretation of Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This particular section criminalizes the act of demanding or requesting sexual favours, forming a critical component of India's legal framework against sexual harassment. The BNS, which is set to replace the Indian Penal Code, introduces new definitions and structures for various offenses, including those related to sexual misconduct.

Prior to the High Court's intervention, the petitioner sought to have the criminal proceedings against him dismissed, arguing that the remaining allegations did not meet the legal threshold for the offenses charged. The broader context of sexual harassment laws in India aims to protect individuals from various forms of unwanted sexual advances and conduct, encompassing verbal, non-verbal, and physical acts. However, the specific wording of each statutory provision dictates the precise elements that must be proven for a conviction.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, in delivering the Karnataka High Court's judgment, made a definitive observation regarding the nature of the alleged offense. The court explicitly stated that the act of looking inappropriately at a woman, when considered in isolation, is not sufficient to constitute the offense of sexual harassment through the demand of sexual favours as defined under Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS. This distinction is vital for understanding the evidentiary requirements for this specific charge.

The ruling emphasized that for an act to fall under the purview of demanding sexual favours, it must involve a clear demand or request, which mere inappropriate looking does not inherently convey. The court's pronouncement clarified that "The allegation of the petitioner having looked at respondent No.2 in an inappropriate manner cannot, by itself, be treated as a demand or request for sexual favours within the meaning of Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS." This precise language underscores the necessity for a more direct or explicit action to meet the statutory definition, moving beyond subjective interpretations of non-verbal cues alone.

This ruling from the Karnataka High Court provides significant clarity on the narrow interpretation of 'demand for sexual favours' under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, establishing that merely looking inappropriately does not suffice for the offense. It sets a precedent that could influence how similar allegations of sexual harassment are evaluated across India, particularly concerning non-verbal conduct. The decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between general inappropriate behavior and the specific legal definition of demanding sexual favours, which requires a more direct or overt action.

The judgment by Justice Suraj Govindaraj underscores the need for a precise application of statutory language, ensuring that criminal proceedings are based on actions that squarely fit the legal definitions. This outcome is crucial for legal practitioners advising clients on sexual harassment complaints or defenses, as it clarifies the evidentiary threshold required for charges under Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS. It reinforces that while inappropriate conduct may be offensive, it does not automatically equate to a demand for sexual favours in the absence of other, more explicit elements.

This ruling clarifies the narrow interpretation of 'demand for sexual favours' under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, establishing that merely looking inappropriately does not suffice. Lawyers must consider this precedent when advising clients on sexual harassment complaints or defenses, particularly regarding non-verbal conduct and the evidentiary threshold for this specific offense.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench