The Calcutta High Court recently ruled that a woman cannot be held liable for the offense of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta clarified that Section 354A, which pertains to sexual harassment, is gender-specific and applies exclusively to males.

The Court highlighted that criminal law provisions must be interpreted strictly, as established in precedents like the Supreme Court's decision in Tolaram Relumal and Anr v. The State of Bombay.

This ruling came in response to a petition filed by a woman who was one of four individuals accused in a 2018 case involving allegations of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The complaint alleged that the petitioner’s father, the main accused, attempted to molest the complainant's mother, and that the petitioner and others were involved in continuously intimidating and torturing the complainant’s mother.

The petitioner sought to have the criminal proceedings against her dismissed, arguing that there were no specific allegations against her and that she had no involvement in the alleged crime. Her lawyer contended that Section 354A of the IPC, which starts with "a man," can only apply to male accused, and that the charge sheet did not contain specific allegations justifying charges under Section 354 of the IPC.

The petitioner’s counsel further argued that she was implicated solely due to her relationship with the main accused.

The State argued that all accused shared a common intention, and the petitioner was among those who threatened the complainant and her mother.

However, the Court found the allegations against the petitioner to be vague and general. It determined that Section 354A could not be applied to the petitioner as she is a woman. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against her.