The Delhi High Court ruled in striking aside an order prosecuting a man for calling a woman "gandi aurat" that insulting a woman or acting rudely toward her does not constitute outraging the modesty of a woman.
The High Court added that gender-specific legislation is intended to address particular problems experienced by a particular gender, not to be "anti-opposite gender" regulations.
It was stated that regardless of whether a law is gender-specific, the fundamental requirement of a judge is unwavering neutrality. It was further stated that the fact that a piece of legislation is gender-specific should not be interpreted to mean that the role of a judge also changes from being neutral to tilting towards a particular gender.
"Gender-specific law exists to address the distinct issues and difficulties that different genders within society experience. However, unless certain presumptions are explicitly established in favor of a particular gender in law, this does not indicate that the judge is to be influenced or swayed by gender-related issues when dispensing justice.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that "judicial neutrality is fundamentally an indispensable cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that all parties, regardless of gender, are treated fairly and equitably."
The High Court stated this when overturning a trial court's decision to charge a man under section 509 of the IPC (word, gesture, or act designed to offend a woman's modesty), stating that a prima facie case had been established against the man.
He is accused of calling the woman a "dirty woman" and using derogatory words when she refused to give him one thousand rupees.
The High Court ruled that the word "gandi aurat," when taken out of context and without any other words that would suggest an intention to insult a woman's modesty, will not put these words inside the purview of Section 509 IPC.
"Had there been any mention of any other words used, context given, or any other gesture, etc. made accompanying, these words, reflecting criminal intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, the outcome of the case would have been different," the statement stated.
