Woman’s Modesty and Man’s Nudity

It is not difficult to imagine that the world’s largest democracy, which is facing numerous national issues like inflation, Islamophobia, post-pandemic complexities, illegal detention of academicians and journalists, has the media space to show headlines that an FIR has been registered or a complaint has been filed against an actor for posting pictures from a nude photoshoot on his own social media page. The author has undertaken due diligence for procuring a copy of the said FIR from Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) of Maharashtra Police — Services for Citizen¹, however, the copy is unavailable to date.

In July 2022, Mumbai Police registered a first information report against Mr Ranveer Singh, a Bollywood actor, under various sections including Section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860² (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Section 509 IPC³ has been reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:

“509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.—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 simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and fine.”

Among other sections in the said FIR, are Sections 292⁴ (sale, etc. of obscene books, etc.), 293⁵ (sale, etc. of obscene objects to young, person) IPC and few provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000⁶.

Modesty of a woman has been discussed by the Supreme Court of India in the famous case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill⁷:

“14. Since the word “modesty” has not been defined in the Penal Code we may profitably look into its dictionary meaning. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edn.) modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct”. The word “modest” in relation to woman is defined in the above dictionary as “decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; shamefast”. Webster’S Third New International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as “freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct”. In the Oxford English Dictionary (1993 Edn.) the meaning of the word modesty is given as “womanly propriety behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestion”.”

Further, the Supreme Court in the same judgment went on to observe that:

“15. … From the above dictionary meaning of “modesty” and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in State of Punjab v. Major Singh⁸, it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the decency of a woman.⁹”

The abovementioned meaning of “modesty of a woman” has its roots in Victorian standards of morality and decency associated with women and is coupled with patriarchal values of Indian society. It is the Victorian norms and roles that are associated with a woman which has been made the premise for understanding, interpreting, and applying the term “modesty of a woman” vis-à-vis the Penal Code. The society and roles associated with being a woman have changed over time due to feminist struggles, making the given definition not only archaic but also strengthening gender-based discrimination. The definitions and interpretations given by the Supreme Court have close nexus with the understanding of gender in the Indian context.

The World Health Organisation defines gender as the characteristics of women, men, girls, and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl, or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.¹⁰

The meanings given to the modesty of a woman clearly show that the law associates decency differently for men and women. Modesty is considered to be the “propriety” of only woman because either the presumption is that man does not have modesty, or they are allowed to be shameless. Also, as per the given socially and legally accepted definitions—decency is only related to a woman and not being forward or lewd is the societal role fastened with women solely because again it is conveniently presumed by the Penal Code that men of Indian society can/will be lewd and indecent. Law is presuming that men by their nature are unashamed and immodest and hence, their modesty cannot be insulted or outraged, unlike women. Sections 354¹¹ and 509 IPC provide for assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty and word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. There is no provision in criminal law which provides for “modesty of man” because it is believed that the same is not required to be protected by law of the land. Therefore, not only these sections are gender biased but their application in the present case is baseless and inappropriate.

A plausible argument in the subject-matter of an FIR being registered against Mr Ranveer Singh for posting nude pictures on his Instagram page could be that it insults the modesty of men to begin with and not of women. Although, it is a different point that this argument also does not hold water in the debate of obscenity vis-à-vis freedom of speech, which does not form the subject-matter of this article and can be very well taken care by the learned counsel/lawyers of Mr Ranveer Singh.

Further, by attracting Section 509 IPC in the present case, the sexuality of women is being judged through the actions and behaviour of men. So, the woman’S agency towards her sexuality is taken away by the privileged social position of men. It is the suggestion of the author that “modesty” should not be a criterion to define offences of intentional indecent behaviour by any gender. Inclusion of “modesty” as the criteria opens the gate to gender-based prejudices creating unequal society.

Also, while this subject-matter is discussed here, it is also interesting to mention that in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal¹², the Supreme Court also noted that:

“In order to establish the offence under Section 509 IPC it is necessary to show that the modesty of a particular woman or a readily identifiable group of women has been insulted by a spoken word, gesture or physical act.”

However, the author leaves it to the merits of the case and the contents of the FIR regarding this aspect of mentioning a particular woman or a readily identifiable group of women who has been insulted by the act of Mr Ranveer Singh posting nude pictures on his social media page.

Hence, based upon what is argued above, if Sections 509 and 354 of the Penal Code, 1860, among other sections therein, are analysed from a different lens then it can be observed that it is strengthening gender inequalities in Indian society which in turn intersect further with other social and economic inequalities.¹³ Such inequalities are disallowing the traditional gender roles associated with man, woman, intersex, to grow with time and circumstances.