India’s Legal Blind Spot: Daytime Harassment In Public Spaces

Abstract 

This article explores the issue of daylight harassment in India, where public spaces become  unsafe for women even during the daytime. Recent incidents and reporting gaps indicate that  safety is not just a nighttime concern. Although Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(d), and 21 of the  Constitution, along with Sections 354, 354A, 354D, and 509 of the IPC, provide theoretical  protection, enforcement on the ground remains quite inconsistent. Judicial interpretation has  developed some safeguards, but daytime-specific jurisprudence remains weak. Comparative  frameworks, such as France’s on-the-spot fine model, demonstrate that targeted legal reforms  can be impactful. The article maps systemic challenges such as police apathy, poor urban  infrastructure, under-reporting, and judicial delays, and concludes that daylight safety is a  fundamental right that can be strengthened through robust legislation, accountable policing,  and gender-sensitive public planning. 

Introduction 

A few months ago, a high-profile case made national headlines, where a young woman faced  harassment outside a metro station in the morning. The footage went viral, public outrage  ensued, but the most disturbing aspect was that the incident occurred in broad daylight- a time  we typically consider a natural safety zone. This incident once again reminded us that the  discourse on women’s safety in India is not limited to nighttime; daytime journeys can be  equally unpredictable and unsafe. 

In this context, a crucial legal question arises: Does Indian law treat daylight harassment as a  distinct public-safety issue? The Constitution guarantees dignity, liberty, and free movement,  and criminal law makes harassment, stalking, and obscene conduct punishable. Yet, the ground  reality of public spaces appears far removed from these assurances. Legislative history has also  mostly focused on workplace, custodial, or nocturnal safety frameworks- consequently,  daytime harassment slips through as a “blind spot”. 

In today’s legal scenario, where urban spaces are rapidly expanding and mobility demographics  are changing, ignoring daytime safety proves costly at both the policy and rights levels.  Therefore, the objective of this article is to analyse daylight harassment as a distinct legal policy concern, examine the adequacy of existing provisions, assess judicial interpretations,  identify loopholes, and recommend practical reforms- so that public spaces can truly become  inclusive and safe.

Legal Framework Governing Women’s Daytime Safety 

Constitutional Guarantees 

India’s legal framework provides theoretically strong protection for women’s safety, but in the  context of daylight harassment, this framework appears fragmented. First, looking at the  constitutional foundation, Article 14 provides a universal guarantee of equal protection and  equality before the law, which prevents the state from maintaining discriminatory or unsafe  public conditions against women.1 Article 15 explicitly prohibits sex-based discrimination and  authorises the state to create special protective provisions in favour of women.2 The core  connection to daytime safety is established through Article 19(1)(d), which ensures the  “freedom to move freely”; when harassment occurs on roads, markets, bus stops, and metros,  it is precisely this right to movement that is first violated.3 The most central pillar of the  constitutional triad is Article 21- the article that protects dignity and personal liberty- which  courts have interpreted as a living guarantee applicable in every public space.4 

Criminal law also addresses multiple layers of harassment. IPC Section 354 punishes the  outrage of modesty through physical force or assault, whereas Section 354A defines explicit  acts of sexual harassment (unwelcome touch, demands, sexually coloured remarks).5 Section  354D criminalises stalking- both online and physical, which is extremely common in daytime  spaces such as streets, colleges, and markets. Section 509 makes gestures, words, and insulting  conduct punishable if they interfere with a woman’s privacy and dignity.6 These sections fulfil important necessities, but no section defines “public-space harassment” as a standalone  offence; therefore, the police and courts have to rely on interpretation-based action.  Special legislation also exists, but its scope is limited.  

The POSH Act 2013 provides an exhaustive framework for workplace harassment, but it does  not apply to public roads, parks, transport hubs, footpaths, or commercial areas- where daytime  harassment occurs most frequently.7 The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 strengthened  offences following the post-Nirbhaya reforms, but no specific statutory definition of “street  harassment,” “public harassment,” or “daylight harassment” was introduced.8 Thus, Indian laws indirectly protect public-space safety, but there remains a lack of distinct, targeted  statutory language. 

Judicial references also treat dignity as a fundamental constitutional value. Vishaka v State of  Rajasthan (1997) declared a safe environment as an essential component of Article 21, albeit  primarily in the workplace context.9 The Major Singh Case (AIR 1967) established bodily  integrity as a core principle of women’s rights, which elevates the seriousness of harassment to  the constitutional level.10 The reasoning of the courts is strong, but a targeted judicial doctrine  on daytime public space harassment has yet to evolve.  

Looking at the overall framework, the Constitution provides rights, the IPC prescribes  punishments, and case law protects dignity — yet no dedicated provision explicitly targeting  daylight harassment exists in the Indian legal system to date. 

Judicial Interpretation 

The judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the legal understanding of daylight  harassment, as the statutory framework does not explicitly define “public-space harassment”  or “daytime harassment.” Courts have consistently reinforced the principles of dignity, bodily  autonomy, and a safe environment, thereby providing strong indirect guidance in harassment  cases through constitutional jurisprudence. 

The most influential judgment was Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan11, in which the Supreme Court  directly linked the right to a safe working environment for women with Articles 14, 15, and 21.  The Court considered harassment a violation of dignity- a reasoning that has subsequently been  applied to public-space harassment cases as well. Although this ruling specifically pertained to  the workplace context, the interpretation of dignity was broad enough to be applicable in public  settings, too. 

A similar expansion can be seen in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v Union of  India12, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for procedural sensitivity, immediate  FIR registration, and a survivor-centric approach. These principles strengthen ground policing  and public harassment complaints, especially when incidents occur in broad daylight and there  is public apathy. 

In addition, the Major Singh Case (1967)13 made bodily integrity the core of harassment  jurisprudence. The Court clarified that a ‘dignity violation’ does not occur only through physical  injury; unwanted touch, obscene remarks, gestures- all can fall within the category of violations  of Article 21. This precedent directly supports the interpretation of daytime harassment. 

High Courts, including the Delhi High Court, have emphasised that public spaces must be safe  for women. In Anupender v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court noted that harassment persists  despite laws and upheld convictions under IPC Sections 354 and 509, stressing that inaction  empowers offenders.14 Courts have reinforced that laws are designed to protect women’s  dignity and safety. 

The prevailing jurisprudential thread indicates that the judiciary has recognised dignity as a  non-negotiable constitutional value. However, courts have so far not categorically addressed  “daytime harassment” as a distinct legal issue. Judicial reasoning is strong, but targeted  doctrinal development is still pending, limiting the impact of both statutory clarity and policy  directives.

Critical Analysis 

The existing legal framework for daytime harassment in public spaces in India is theoretically  strong, but in practice, there are many loopholes and ambiguities. IPC Sections 354, 354A,  354D, and 509 protect women’s dignity and safety, but these provisions do not specifically  target daytime or street harassment, which results in many cases being under-reported.15 The  approach of law enforcement is also inconsistent; lack of police sensitisation, delays in filing  FIRs, and treating complaints as trivial are common, which undermines the intended protection  of the law.  

Practical evaluation shows that the implementation of laws is quite uneven. While awareness  and enforcement are somewhat better in urban areas, in semi-urban and rural areas, victims  face significant difficulties in accessing justice. Administrative tools such as the SHE-Box  portal are helpful, but there is a need for improvement in response time and follow-up  mechanisms.16 

From a comparative perspective, France introduced an anti-street harassment law in 2018, under which on-the-spot fines (up to €750) can be issued for insulting or degrading behaviour.17 The UK and Middle Eastern countries have also implemented targeted public harassment  reforms, demonstrating that tailored legal provisions and proactive enforcement can make the  law more effective. In India, there remains a gap, as existing statutes are generic, and there is  an urgent need for reforms and adaptations. 

Recent Developments 

There have been some notable recent developments in India regarding daytime harassment and  women’s safety in public spaces, aimed at strengthening legal reforms and policy frameworks.  Firstly, advancements have been observed in digital platforms and complaint mechanisms: the  Ministry of Women and Child Development has further enhanced the SHe-Box portal during  the 2024-25 period, where multiple states each year — such as Delhi, Uttar Pradesh,  Maharashtra, and Odisha — have adopted mandatory registration and complaint tracking for  workplaces and public institutions as a judicial directive, to make redressal mechanisms more  accountable and transparent.18 

At the policy level, some state initiatives are also underway that aim to broaden public safety.  Efforts such as Uttar Pradesh’s Mission Shakti 5.0 and Kalika/Nirbhaya patrol units have  enhanced ground-level enforcement and awareness for women’s safety, resulting in significant  improvements in reported safety outcomes.19 

Programs like Odisha’s Pink Zones are attempting to strengthen urban safety infrastructure by  establishing CCTV surveillance, assistance counters, and monitoring points, thereby creating  proactive structural deterrence against harassment incidents.20 

Legislatively, separate bills have been tabled in states like Tamil Nadu to expand the scope of  harassment and digital harassment, proposing stricter preventive obligations and higher penalties for public places — malls, hospitals, and crowded areas.21 These moves represent an  important step towards giving enforcement statutory teeth.  

Ongoing debates and societal discourse have also remained very active: platforms such as the  Jaipur Literature Festival 2025 organize wide-ranging surveys and policy discussions on sexual  harassment in public spaces, where nationwide data and expert insights influence public  opinion and academic engagement.22 

Public reaction is mixed: media reports and surveys indicate that harassment incidents — such  as those reported in Jaipur’s NARI 2025 report — are still around the national average, and the  reporting rate remains low, highlighting gaps in enforcement and awareness.23 

The government and civil society largely maintain a pro-reform stance, but due to  implementation challenges, the real-world impact of policy commitments is still in a testing  phase. 

Suggestions 

“The law works effectively only when it addresses not just punishment, but also prevention  and dignity together.” 

In the context of daytime harassment, India now needs a forward-looking framework — one in  which laws are clearer, implementation is stronger, and society is more inclusive.

        1. Constructive Recommendations for Strengthening the Law 

(a) Create a Specific Statutory Offence for Daytime Public-Space Harassment 

Currently, IPC provisions are scattered — 354, 354D, 509, etc. These laws are strong for  serious offences, but they do not clearly define minor yet repeated harassment.

Recommendation: 

Parliament should enact a separate clause or a micro-offence that clearly defines: 

• persistent staring 
• unwanted comments 
• following 
• inappropriate gestures 
• unwanted photographing 
• touching in crowded areas 

This would reduce police discretion and also lessen the hesitation of victims.

(b) Make Police Response Time-Bound & Mandatory 

The biggest problem with street harassment is a non-serious response. 

Officers often say, “Madam, this keeps happening.”  

This normalisation is dangerous. 

Recommendation:  

MHA & State Police should create fixed timelines:  

• Complaint acknowledgement: within 15–30 minutes  
• Spot check: within 1 hour  
• CCTV extraction: within 24 hours  
• Written report back to complainant 

Time-bound enforcement genuinely creates deterrence. 

(c) Statutory Duties on Municipal Bodies 

Streetlights, CCTV, women’s help points, patrolling booths — these should not be a “luxury”  but basic safety infrastructure. 

Recommendation:  

Legal duty should be imposed on local bodies to maintain safe public spaces. There should be departmental liability for non-compliance. 

(d) Launch National Harassment-Reporting Platform 

Himmat, Suraksha, etc., are fragmented apps.  

A unified portal should also track complaints and preserve evidence. 

Recommendation:  

A single national app for:  

• instant SOS, 
• auto location tagging,  
• CCTV linkage,  
• complaint status tracking,  
• admissible e-evidence. 

(e) Strengthen Data Collection in NCRB 

Right now, NCRB reports “eve-teasing,” “insulting modesty,” etc.  

But “daytime public harassment” does not exist as a distinct category. 

Recommendation:  

NCRB should create a separate statistical category, so that policymaking can be evidence-based. 

         2. Role of the Judiciary 

(a) Continue Expanding Constitutional Interpretation 

Courts have repeatedly provided Article 21 with umbrella protection covering dignity and  safety. The judiciary can explicitly extend this interpretation to include public-space  harassment. 

(b) Issue Directions for Police Standardisation 

High Courts routinely take up matters suo motu. Courts can mandate uniform SOPs nationwide  for: 

• CCTV installation, 
• patrolling frequency, 
• women-safety protocols. 

(c) Encourage Victim-Friendly Procedures 

Courts can push for: 

• recording of statements via video conference, 
• minimal adjournments, 
• anonymity orders in sensitive harassment cases. 

These reforms will make proceedings less intimidating.

3. Role of the Legislature 

(a) Comprehensive Amendment Package 

The Legislature can enact a consolidated law like a Women’s Public Safety and Mobility Act,  which includes policing reforms, municipal responsibilities, digital reporting, and penalties. 

(b) Budget Allocation for Urban Safety Infrastructure 

Infrastructure cannot be sustained without funds. The Legislature should allocate targeted funds  for: 

• streetlight maintenance, 
• public surveillance, 
• dedicated women-safety zones, 
• safe public transport projects. 

4. Role of Civil Society 

(a) Bystander Training Programs 

Harassment in public places can only be prevented by the public—if they are trained. NGOs and civil society groups can conduct bystander intervention workshops.

(b) Awareness Campaigns 

Considering harassment as “normal” is the root problem. Campaigns should be conducted in  schools, colleges, metro stations, and bus stands. 

(c) Partnerships With Government 

Many NGOs already collect safety-mapping data (Safetipin, etc.). Partnerships between civil  society and the government can improve the real safety score of cities. 

5. Cultural Change: The Long Game 

Legal reform is effective only when society undergoes a mindset shift. Schools, colleges,  influencers, and media—all must convey a clear message: “Public space is shared space, and  dignity is non-negotiable.”