Introduction
The Madras High Court has held in a recent judgment that moral policing, especially when directed against women, violates Article 21 of the Constitution. It said such policing harms dignity, leads to social ostracisation, and sometimes even forces victims to take their own lives.
What did the Madras High Court say about moral policing and Article 21?
The court stressed that moral policing has no legal sanction. It stated that vigilante interference with personal liberties is unacceptable. It cited Shakti Vahini v. Union of India as a precedent condemning such interference. The court observed that women in rural areas often suffer the most from this behaviour. Such acts, it held, directly assault the constitutional guarantee of dignity and liberty under Article 21.
The court further linked moral policing to grave consequences such as social ostracisation. It said that victims are often blamed, shamed, and isolated by communities, which may push them toward despair. In some cases, the court noted, women have tragically taken their own lives.
How do international obligations play into this ruling?
The court pointed to international conventions to strengthen its reasoning. It referred to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Under these treaties, States must protect individuals from gender-based violence and arbitrary interference with privacy, honour, and reputation. The court said that these obligations reinforce the constitutional duty to shield women from vigilante actions that demean them.
What were the facts of the case before the court?
The case involved a woman who allegedly conversed with a man while her husband was away. Neighbours spread rumours of an illicit affair. A man locked her house from the outside while she was inside, which further escalated suspicion. The woman later committed suicide.
Her mother sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused, arguing that the social scandal contributed to her daughter’s death. The trial court had already granted bail, and the High Court was asked to reconsider that decision.
The accused faced charges under Section 127(2) (wrongful confinement), Section 296(b) (obscene acts and songs), and Section 108 (abetment of suicide) of the Bangalore City Police Act (BNS, as termed in the judgment). The court did not find the trial court’s bail decision flawed, but it held that stronger and more monitored conditions were necessary.
What conditions did the High Court impose and why?
To strike a balance between individual rights and public interest, the High Court extended a condition on the accused: he must appear at the police station twice daily for one year. The court said this would instil discipline and act as a deterrent against moral policing.
By imposing stricter bail terms, the court aimed to protect the dignity of women, prevent misuse of liberty, and discourage vigilante behaviour.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court reaffirmed that moral policing women cannot stand under the Constitution. It ruled that such acts violate Article 21, endanger dignity, and inflict social harm. It anchored its reasoning in international norms and imposed stringent bail conditions to deter recurrences. This decision underscores that personal liberty and dignity must be protected against extrajudicial impositions by self-appointed guardians of morality.
