Criminalization Of Harassment Of Women In Public Transport
⚖️ Overview: Criminalization of Harassment of Women in Public Transport
1. Relevant Legal Provisions
Harassment of women in buses, trains, taxis, or other public transport is a criminal offense under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, and other special laws.
| Law | Section | Description |
|---|---|---|
| IPC §354 | Assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty | |
| IPC §354A | Sexual harassment (unwelcome physical contact, advances, or remarks) | |
| IPC §354D | Stalking, including following a woman or contacting her repeatedly | |
| IPC §509 | Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman | |
| IPC §294 | Obscene acts or songs in public places | |
| Section 186, 353 IPC | Obstructing a public servant (for bus/train conductors, if involved) | |
| Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 §177–§182 | Offenses by drivers, conductors or others in public transport | |
| Indian Railways Act, 1989 §146, §153 | Misconduct or harassment in trains or stations |
2. Key Legal Principles
Public transport is a public place; all IPC sections relating to molestation, obscenity, and sexual harassment apply.
Vicarious liability may apply to transport authorities if they neglect safety obligations.
Burden of proof often rests on testimony, CCTV, and independent witnesses.
Post-2013 amendments expanded “sexual harassment” to include non-physical harassment, stalking, and verbal abuse.
⚖️ Six Important Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan (Bombay High Court, 1998)
Facts:
A woman passenger was molested by a bus conductor on a crowded BEST bus.
She raised alarm; witnesses confirmed the incident.
Legal Issues:
Whether unwelcome physical contact amounts to “outraging the modesty” under Section 354 IPC.
Liability of conductor as a public servant in uniform.
Judgment:
The Court convicted the conductor under IPC §354 and §509, sentencing him to 2 years’ imprisonment.
Court emphasized that public servants have a higher duty of care toward women passengers.
Significance:
Established that harassment by a bus staff member constitutes an aggravated offense due to abuse of authority.
Case 2: Prem Chand v. State (Delhi High Court, 2009)
Facts:
A man repeatedly followed a woman on a DTC bus, made indecent gestures, and tried to touch her.
The victim’s complaint led to his arrest by police officers on patrol duty.
Legal Issues:
Whether persistent following and obscene gestures constitute “stalking” and “insulting modesty.”
Judgment:
Conviction under Sections 354D (stalking) and 509 (insulting modesty).
Sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment and fine.
Significance:
One of the earliest cases recognizing stalking on public transport as criminal harassment.
Case 3: State v. Rajesh Kumar (Delhi High Court, 2014)
Facts:
Accused touched a woman inappropriately in a crowded Delhi Metro train.
CCTV footage and witness statements corroborated her version.
Legal Issues:
Whether “accidental contact” can be differentiated from “intentional harassment.”
Judgment:
Court ruled that the contact was deliberate, convicting him under Section 354A IPC.
Imposed 2 years rigorous imprisonment and ordered Delhi Metro to improve safety measures.
Significance:
Clarified that intentional physical contact in crowded transport amounts to sexual harassment even without verbal abuse.
Case 4: Anil Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Himachal Pradesh HC, 2016)
Facts:
A taxi driver harassed a solo female passenger with sexual comments and gestures during travel.
He also refused to stop the car when requested.
Legal Issues:
Whether verbal harassment during public transport constitutes an offense under §509 IPC.
Whether driver’s refusal to stop increased criminal liability.
Judgment:
Court convicted the driver under Sections 509 and 354A IPC, imposing 1 year imprisonment and cancellation of driver’s license.
Significance:
Recognized verbal and psychological harassment during travel as criminal.
Strengthened women’s right to safety in public transport.
Case 5: S. Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court, 2018)
Facts:
Accused repeatedly followed a woman commuter on Chennai city buses and railway stations, making obscene comments.
The woman filed multiple complaints before police took action.
Legal Issues:
Whether repeated following amounts to stalking under §354D IPC.
Whether failure of police to act immediately violates victim’s rights.
Judgment:
Court convicted accused under §354D and §509, ordering 3 years imprisonment.
Criticized the police for initial inaction and directed training of transport police for faster response.
Significance:
Pioneered recognition of repetitive stalking behavior on transport routes as a criminal pattern.
Case 6: Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2020)
Facts:
A bus driver and conductor harassed two women passengers with vulgar remarks during a night journey.
The incident was recorded by other passengers on mobile phones.
Legal Issues:
Liability of both driver and conductor under IPC.
Whether employers (bus owners) share vicarious liability.
Judgment:
Court held both guilty under Sections 354A, 509 IPC, and Section 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ordered license suspension for 5 years and compensation to victims.
Significance:
Affirmed that transport companies can face administrative action for harassment by their employees.
⚖️ Broader Judicial and Policy Context
1. Supreme Court Observations: Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013)
The Court emphasized dignity of women as integral to Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
Any form of sexual misconduct in public constitutes a violation of constitutional rights.
2. Delhi High Court in Shalu Nigam v. Commissioner of Police (2017)
Directed Delhi Police and Transport Authority to ensure CCTV, helplines, and women marshals on buses and metros.
⚖️ Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Physical Harassment | IPC §354 and §354A — Intentional touching, grabbing, or physical abuse |
| Verbal Harassment | IPC §509 — Comments, gestures, songs insulting modesty |
| Stalking/Following | IPC §354D — Repeatedly following or contacting a woman without consent |
| Employer Liability | Bus, taxi, or train operators liable under Motor Vehicles Act if they fail to ensure safety |
| Punishment | 1–5 years imprisonment, fine, and license suspension for drivers/conductors |
| Protection Measures | Women-only compartments, emergency helplines, CCTV, and awareness campaigns |
🧩 Conclusion
Indian courts have consistently upheld strict criminal liability for harassment of women in public transport. Judicial trends show:
Zero tolerance for molestation or verbal abuse in public spaces.
Accountability of transport authorities to ensure passenger safety.
Expansion of harassment definition post-2013 to include non-physical and digital forms of misconduct.
RELATED Blog
comments