Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman
Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Section 79, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 509 Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman Text carried over almost unchanged 96%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uttering any word or making any gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman, etc. | Simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings initiated on allegations that fail to disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences charged, where the underlying dispute is fundamentally civil in nature (employment termination), and where procedural irregularities and discrepancies suggest deliberate misclassification of the matter to transform a civil dispute into criminal proceedings for purposes of coercion or settlement, constitute an abuse of legal process and travesty of justice warranting quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The essential ingredients of criminal offences must be strictly established: Section 323 requires voluntary act of causing actual hurt; Sections 504 and 509 require specific intentional insult with contextual details and intent to provoke or shock sense of decency; Section 506 requires threat with intent to cause alarm, not mere assertion of consequences of lawful termination. Mere allegations without substantiation of these ingredients do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Insult to modesty of woman - Court examined whether 'filthy language' without contextual details, specific words, or accompanying gestures could shock sense of decency; found ingredients not satisfied
-
Harbhajan Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court is presented with prima facie material consisting of a dying declaration naming specific persons as responsible for the victim's suicide, corroborated by the testimony of credible prosecution witnesses that those persons had engaged in a sustained course of threats and harassment, the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC to summon such persons as additional accused should be exercised. The fact that such persons were not initially chargesheeted does not prevent the Court from exercising this jurisdiction at a later stage if evidence adduced during trial discloses their participation in the commission of an offence. This power should be used sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist, which are present when the evidence is sufficient to support a reasonable possibility of conviction at the conclusion of the trial.
On this section: Various charges mentioned in the FIR - Outraging modesty (Section 509), Cheating (Section 420), Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120-B), Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 456)
-
Madhavi Tata v. State of Telangana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2015-12-31 DATE VERIFIED. CrlP 6794/2015. B. Siva Sankara Rao. 482 quash of a 509 / IT 67 / IRWA FIR over an Outlook satire/caricature. Following Khushboo: s.509 requires a word, gesture or act intending to insult the modesty of a particular woman or identifiable group; contemporary community standards and Art 19(1)(a) govern obscenity. The unnamed satirical piece, judged as a whole, does not make out 509. Do not remap it-act 67 or crpc 482 (already filled). Badrinarayana Jaganathan SCIN010392702019 order-7.pdf is a pronouncement ROP — skip.
On this section: Successor of IPC 509 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9556). The particular-woman / contemporary-standards teaching carries to BNS 79.
-
Gaurav vs State of Hp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Security proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 CrPC are preventive in nature and do not bar subsequent FIR registration for cognizable offences arising from the same incident. Discharge in security proceedings is not acquittal and does not attract the prohibition of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC. A person discharged in preventive proceedings may be prosecuted for criminal offences based on the same facts. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, should only examine whether allegations prima facie constitute an offence without conducting a mini-trial or appreciating evidence. Contradictions in complaint or complainant statement are not grounds for quashing FIR at threshold stage.
On this section: Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty - applied to vulgar language about wife
-
Shimpu Alias Som Dutt vs State of Hp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious criminal charges under the SC/ST Atrocities Act and POCSO Act, bail may be granted by the High Court under Section 439 CrPC if the accused demonstrates cooperation with investigation and willingness to submit to court authority, provided that stringent and comprehensive conditions are imposed to protect victims, prevent witness intimidation, ensure investigation cooperation, and maintain trial integrity. The court must apply the Arnesh Kumar principles while tailoring conditions to the specific circumstances of each case.
On this section: Charge of word, gesture, or act intended to insult modesty; considered in assessing seriousness of charges
-
Yanamadala Anil Chand vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person has been acquitted in most criminal cases, has not been involved in any criminal activity for several years, and has no pending cases, the continuation of a rowdy sheet without any current justification may be deemed arbitrary. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to permit the person to make a representation before the competent police authority (Sub-Divisional Police Officer) for closure of the rowdy sheet, rather than granting absolute mandamus, thereby balancing law enforcement interests with individual rehabilitation rights.
On this section: Cited in context of criminal case for word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty
-
State of Maharashtra vs Sushant Suresh Kotkar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant and the victim themselves, turn hostile and do not support the prosecution case in their testimony, and no other credible evidence is brought on record to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations without supporting evidence from credible witnesses are insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a person - Applied in conjunction with Section 354-A for the allegations against the minor victim
-
Arjun Himagiri vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the complainant has withdrawn her grievance, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the prosecution has no serious objection, no public interest is involved, and no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding with the case, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge sheet in the interest of justice and to secure the ends of justice.
On this section: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a person - one of the charges against the accused
-
Yahiya vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving offences against women, anticipatory bail may be granted if stringent conditions are imposed to ensure investigation cooperation, prevent further offences, and protect the complainant and witnesses. The court must balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, investigation, and public safety, considering factors such as the nature of offences, history of the accused, and the effectiveness of proposed bail conditions.
On this section: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman - applied to the accused for pressing the complainant's breast
-
Rashmi Srivastav vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 509, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complainant's information is laid with the police but no action is taken, the complainant must approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC rather than seeking writ jurisdiction from the High Court. The High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to direct police to register an FIR; this is the exclusive domain of the Magistrate who can enquire into the complaint and direct investigation if prima facie case is established.
On this section: Alleged offence of word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a person, cited as basis for FIR registration sought by petitioner
-
Vallac Mackson Da Souza vs The Panaji Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An owner of a seized vehicle is entitled to interim custody under Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023, upon establishing ownership through valid registration and insurance, to prevent waste and loss of value of the asset while in police custody.
On this section: Substantive penal section under which the primary FIR was registered.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 79
What have the courts held on Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka (24 Jan 2025) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 509, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Insult to modesty of woman - Court examined whether 'filthy language' without contextual details, specific words, or accompanying gestures could shock sense of decency; found ingredients not satisfied. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2026.
Is Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 79, section 79 BNS, section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 79 is bailable or not and bns 79 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka (24 Jan 2025).
What should I read with Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 79, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.