The words or gestures must be sexually explicit to count as an offence.

Courts have held that any act intended to insult a woman's dignity — even a non-sexual but demeaning gesture — can qualify, as long as the intent to insult her modesty is present.

Physical contact is required for this offence.

No touching is needed. Words, sounds, gestures, showing an object, or simply intruding on privacy are enough if done with the intent to insult modesty.

This section only protects adult women against strangers.

Courts have held that a woman's modesty, including that of a young child, can be insulted regardless of the relationship between the parties or the woman's age.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 79

Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman

Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object in any form, 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 also with fine. Of offences relating to marriage§

Why this exists

This provision descends from Section 509 of the old Indian Penal Code (1860), a colonial-era law meant to punish non-physical forms of harassment against women — lewd remarks, obscene gestures, indecent exposure of objects, or 'eve-teasing' — that fell short of physical assault. The phrase 'intrudes upon the privacy' was added by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, following public outrage after the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case, to also cover acts like peeping, stalking-adjacent surveillance, or spying on a woman in private moments. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries this provision forward largely unchanged as Section 79.

How courts read it

Under the predecessor IPC Section 509, courts developed the idea that 'modesty' is an attribute inherent to being a woman, not dependent on her age, conduct, or attire. In State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1966), the Supreme Court held that even a very young child could have her modesty insulted. In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that an act need not be sexually explicit to attract this offence — a deliberate, humiliating physical gesture (in that case, a slap) intended to demean a woman could itself amount to insulting her modesty, so long as the intention to insult was present. Courts have consistently emphasised that the accused's intention and the effect on the woman's sense of dignity are central to establishing the offence, and these interpretive principles are expected to continue guiding the identical language in BNS Section 79.

Common misconceptions

Myth: The words or gestures must be sexually explicit to count as an offence.
Fact: Courts have held that any act intended to insult a woman's dignity — even a non-sexual but demeaning gesture — can qualify, as long as the intent to insult her modesty is present.
Myth: Physical contact is required for this offence.
Fact: No touching is needed. Words, sounds, gestures, showing an object, or simply intruding on privacy are enough if done with the intent to insult modesty.
Myth: This section only protects adult women against strangers.
Fact: Courts have held that a woman's modesty, including that of a young child, can be insulted regardless of the relationship between the parties or the woman's age.