New Delhi, Feb 16: Senior’s admonition at the workplace does not amount to an “intentional insult” requiring criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court has held.
The top court said allowing criminal charges to be pressed against individuals in such cases may lead to disastrous consequences, crippling the entire disciplinary atmosphere required in the workplace.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence do not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 504 of the IPC deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
The offence, punishable with jail term of up to two years, has now been replaced with Section 352 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) effective from July 2024.
The top court’s judgement came while quashing a 2022 criminal case against the officiating director of the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, who was accused of insulting an assistant professor.
The complainant had alleged that the director scolded and reprimand her in front of other employees for submitting complaints against him to the higher authorities.
It was also alleged that the director failed to provide and maintain adequate PPE kits in the institute, which posed a great risk of spreading infectious diseases such as Covid-19.
The apex court said from the bare perusal of the chargesheet and documents relied therein, the allegations seem to be purely conjectural, and by no stretch of imagination they can be considered sufficient to constitute the ingredients of the offences under Sections 269 (negligent acts that could spread a dangerous disease) and 270 (malicious act of spreading a life-threatening disease) of the IPC.
“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.
“It is a reasonable expectation on the part of a person who caters to the affairs at the helm that his juniors should attend to their professional duties with utmost sincerity and dedication,” the judgment, delivered on February 10, said. (PTI)
