Senior’s Admonition At Workplace Not “Intentional Insult With The Intent To Provoke” U/S 504 IPC: Supreme Court
The Apex Court allowed a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court.
The Supreme Court held that a senior’s admonition at a workplace is not an “intentional insult with the intent to provoke” under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the same relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline and the discharge of duties therein.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “In the facts and circumstances of the present case, appellant’s act of reprimanding the complainant cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated to be an ‘intentional insult’ meted out to the complainant so as to provoke her to commit breach of peace or any other offence. If the interpretation advanced from the side of prosecution and the complainant is accepted, it may lead to gross misuse of liberty in workplaces. Therefore, in our opinion, senior’s admonition cannot be reasonably attributed to mean an ‘intentional insult with the intent to provoke’ within the means of Section 504, IPC, provided that the admonition relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline and the discharge of duties therein.”
The Bench said that an insult without an “intention to insult” is not punishable under Section 504 IPC and further, ‘intentional insult’ must be of such a degree that it has the potential to provoke a reasonable person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
AOR Hitendra Nath Rath represented the Appellant while AOR Devina Sehgal represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Respondent i.e., Complainant was working as an Assistant Professor, Pediatrics in National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, Secunderabad. The Complainant was called by the Appellant-accused through his attender to come to his chamber and during the time, the accused was discharging his duties as Officiating Director of the Institute (workplace). It was alleged that no sooner the Complainant entered the chamber of the Appellant, he started addressing her in a high-pitched voice reprimanding her for having filed Complaints against him to the higher authority. The Complainant immediately protested and apprised the accused that as she had just recovered from Covid-19 virus and was continuously facing various medical issues, he must refrain from raising his voice at her.
Immediately thereafter, her hands began to tremble and she started sweating profusely. She left the chamber of the accused stating that she would submit a written reply in this regard. The Complainant then filed a Complaint against the accused pursuant to which an FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 504, and 354 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance and summoned the accused. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred a Criminal Petition before the High Court, seeking quashment of proceedings against him. The High Court dismissed the said Petition and challenging this, the accused was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The law does not mandate that the complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking him/her to commit breach of peace or any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which the offending words are used, the person to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504, IPC.”
The Court further reiterated that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness, or insolence does not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 IPC and it would be immaterial that the person who has been insulted and provoked did not actually break the peace or commit any offence.
“The animus nocendi in Section 504, IPC is that the accused should ‘intentionally insult’ the other person with the intention or knowledge that the provocation caused by such insult is likely to result in the commission of breach of public peace or any other offence by the person who has been so insulted. The offence is said to be complete once the accused person makes ‘intentional insult’ with the aforesaid mens rea”, it said.
The Court observed that the intention or knowledge on the part of accused person that his actions of making ‘intentional insult’ have the potential to provoke the person insulted is sine qua non for the commission of the offence under Section 504 IPC.
“… in our opinion, senior’s admonition cannot be reasonably attributed to mean an ‘intentional insult with the intent to provoke’ within the means of Section 504, IPC, provided that the admonition relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline and the discharge of duties therein”, it also noted.
Furthermore, the Court explained that whether the person provoked further commits an illegal act or not is immaterial to draw the conclusion of culpability under Section 504, IPC and that the ‘intentional insult’ and provocation must be so proximate and close that the accused has either the intention or the knowledge that the intentional insult made by him is likely to cause the provoked person to break public peace or commit some other offence.
“However, what would be the nature of ‘intentional insult’ causing provocation, to draw culpability under Section 504, IPC would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The test to be applied to determine if the intentional insult made by the accused is sufficient to cause provocation is that of a reasonable person, i.e., if the insult is sufficient to provoke any reasonable person to break peace or commit any other offence, only then the accused will be liable for the offence under Section 504, IPC”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that allowing criminal charges to be pressed against the individual being the Director of the Institute (workplace) for trying to maintain discipline may lead to disastrous consequences crippling the entire disciplinary atmosphere required in the workplace.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 194)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Hitendra Nath Rath
Respondents: AORs Devina Sehgal, Harsh Parashar, and Advocate Somaya Gupta.
