NEW DELHI, Feb 16: The Supreme Court has determined that a senior’s reprimand in the workplace does not constitute an “intentional insult” that would warrant criminal action.
The court pointed out that allowing criminal cases to be initiated in such scenarios could lead to significant disruptions in the necessary disciplinary environment of a workplace.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta stated that instances of mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness, or insolence do not meet the definition of an intentional insult as outlined in Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 504 addresses intentional insults designed to provoke a breach of peace.
This offense, which carries a maximum prison term of two years, will be supplanted by Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) starting July 2024.
The Supreme Court’s ruling came in response to the quashing of a 2022 criminal case against the acting director of the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, who faced accusations of insulting an assistant professor.
The complaint included claims that the director reprimanded the professor publicly for submitting grievances against him to higher authorities.
Additionally, it was alleged that the director failed to supply sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) for the institute, thereby risking the spread of infectious diseases like Covid-19.
The apex court observed that the allegations in the chargesheet appeared to be largely speculative and did not constitute a basis for charges under Sections 269 (negligent acts likely to spread a dangerous disease) and 270 (malicious acts of spreading a life-threatening disease) of the IPC.
“Therefore, we believe that a senior’s admonishment cannot reasonably be construed as an ‘intentional insult with intent to provoke’ as defined in Section 504 of the IPC, provided the admonishment pertains to workplace matters including discipline and duty fulfillment,” the bench stated.
“It is a reasonable expectation for someone in a leadership position that their subordinates will approach their professional responsibilities with utmost sincerity and dedication,” the judgment, issued on February 10, noted. (Agencies)
