Authored By: Bilal Ahmed
Mawana College of Law
Introduction :
Constitution of India gives right to freedom to live with dignity for every citizen of the country and also provide some provisions for women specifically to stop discrimination based on the sex and also ensures the dignity, liberty and modesty of a woman. From the vedic age to the modern world woman remain entitle only for to became a housewife and for became modest in front of husband and obey and follow him, From that time women safety was a concern and struggle continues to give equal rights till now. Today the situation of women is different in a positive way, as I write earlier constitution gives equal rights and equal opportunities to women and also re-discover the value of modesty of a woman.
In recent case of state of Bihar on 15 December 2025, Bihar Government organise a appointment distribution event in Patna (Capital of Bihar) where the Chief Minister of Bihar Shri Nitish Kumar was distributing appointment letter to the doctors. When controversy began when chief minister Nitish kumar gives a appointment letter to Dr. Nushrat Parveen and pulled down the Veil/Naqab of the doctor the situation escalated and sparks a controversy on national and international level. The video circulated and sparked legal and public outrage which is against the modesty of woman, violates privacy and intervention in personal space of a woman.
Criticism of Incident :
The CM Nitish Kumar was criticized and many organizations and associations demands apology- Amnesty International commented- This act was an assault on this woman’s dignity, autonomy, and identity. When a public official forcibly pulls down a woman’s hijab, it sends a message to the general public that this behavior is acceptable. No one has the right to police a woman’s faith or clothing.
“Such actions deepen fear, normalize discrimination, and erode the very foundations of equality and freedom of religion. This violation demands unequivocal condemnation and accountability. Urgent steps must be taken to ensure that no woman is subjected to such degrading treatment.”
Pakistan’s Statement: The Foreign Office spokesperson stated the incident was “deeply disturbing” and warranted “strong condemnation”. The spokesperson warned that “The action risks normalising the humiliation of Muslim women in India” and shows disrespect for religious minorities.
Al Jazeera: Reported on the “widespread outrage and condemnation” triggered by the incident, noting it occurred while the woman was receiving an appointment letter in Patna.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) letter said, “Besides infringing on her autonomy, agency and religious freedom, it is a reflection of the depraving attitude against women in general.” It also condemned “the vile comments made by Union Minister Giriraj Singh and Uttar Pradesh Minister Sanjay Nishad”, saying such remarks undermined the dignity of women.
Women’s rights groups also sought action from the National Commission for Women (NCW), arguing that the act constituted a violation of criminal provisions and fundamental rights.
Concept of Modesty of a Woman :
The meaning of word “Modesty” is not defined in the code anywhere. First we had to identify the meaning of the modesty.
The literal meaning of the word modesty is a ‘state of being free from vanity’ which means an act of extreme violence and cruelty, usually the courts go by the popular meaning and claims that men should observe some sense of decency of behavior in their relations with women. However, in one of the cases the Supreme Court has defined ‘modesty’and it states that ‘the essence of women’s modesty is her sex’.Modesty is an attribute associated with females which reflects a particular class.
Websters dictionary defines modesty in females, modesty has the like character as in males; but the word is used also as synonymous with chastity, or purity of manners. In this sense, modesty results from purity of mind, or from the fear of disgrace and ignominy fortified by education and principle. Unaffected modesty is the sweetest charm of female excellence, the richest gem in the diadem of their honor.
According to the 1993 Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, modesty is defined as the “womanly propriety of behaviour: scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestion.
The word ‘modesty’ is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word ‘modesty’ in relation to woman as follows: “Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lower; Shame-fast; Scrupulously chast.”
Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to woman, “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct.” It is the reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions.
Modesty of woman under Indian criminal Law :
India criminal law recognised modesty and safety of women through-Section 354 IPC : Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
NOW
Section 74 of BNS : Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
Punishment for minimum 1 year in jail and extended upto 5 yeas and fine upto 1 Lakh rupees.
Explanation : Victim should be a women and age in irrelevant irrespective of apparel, dress and social status under this section. The action of force against woman including act of pulling a women, pulling her saree, pulling dress of women (like the case of CM Nitish Kumar), holding hands without consent, pushing a women etc. Does not need of any sexual harm for this section any act or obscene gesture and comment.
Section 509 IPC – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
NOW
Section 79 BNS – Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman
Punishment : Simple imprisonment for 3 years + Fine
Explanation : Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
As observed by Justice Patterson in Rex v. James Llyod (1876) 7 C&P 817 in order to find the accused guilty of an assault with intent to commit a rape, court must be satisfied that the accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify his passions upon her person but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. The point of distinction between an offence of attempt to commit rape and to commit indecent assault is that there should be some action on the part of the accused which would show that he was just going to have sexual connection with her.
In State of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63) a question arose whether a female child of seven and a half months could be said to be possessed of ‘modesty’ which could be outraged. In answering the above question the majority view was that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354 IPC. Needless to say, the “common notions of mankind” referred to have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. It was further observed in the said case that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex.
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 and Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online SC 726, the Court reiterated that for an offence of criminal intimidation to be prima facie established, the intention should be clearly visible, and the same is to be established by the evidence on record. The Court said that the FIR, interim investigation report and the chargesheet, did not disclose any offence having been committed by the accused person.
Constitutional Jurisprudence on Modesty :
Article 14: Article 14 of the Indian Constitution enshrines the fundamental right to equality before the law, ensuring that every person, regardless of gender, shall be equal before the law. This principle enables the woman to enjoy any legal protection and also binds her by the same kind of legal obligations as a man. It prohibits gender discrimination in all its forms and guarantees women equitable access to justice, rights, and opportunities.
Article 15 (3) acts as an exception by allowing positive discrimination to promote the welfare of women and children. This provision enables the state to take affirmative actions, such as implementing laws and policies that address the specific needs and challenges faced by these groups.
Article 21 – Dignity, Privacy, and Bodily Autonomy ; In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised human dignity, bodily autonomy, and decisional privacy as core components of Article 21.
Workplace under the POSH Act, 2013 :
The sexual harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to provide protection against sexual harassment against women it also protect the dignity and liberty to work in workplace for a women.
Workplace is explicitly defines under section 2(o) of POSH Act, 2013 as Any government place, institution, office, organisation set up by the govt. or run by the government, funded, controlled or locally, directly or indirectly by the any govt authority.
Any private sector company which can be commercial, educational, venture capital, vocational institution and also trust and non-profitable NGO’s.
Hospitals and health care institution which can be public and govberment.
Also include any sports complex like gym, game venues etc.
An a state-organised appointment ceremony be considered a “workplace” under thePOSH Act?
Now comes to the incident of the Nitish Kumar, The event was organized funded and operate by the State of Bihar which include officials of Bihar and as well the people who got the appointment letters which make them employees and made the event as workplace under the POSH Act, 2013.
In Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India (2008) (Delhi High Court), the Court held that:
The concept of workplace cannot be narrowly confined to a physical office space and must include any location where work-related interactions occur.
Does protection under POSH extend to prospective employees or appointees?
Section 2 (a) explicitly gives definition of “aggrieved woman” where clause (i) clearly state that any women can be aggrieved woman whether she is an employed or not in that workplace.
Section 2 (b) explains that workplace cane be “appropriate government” which is clearly explained in clause (i) which states that workplace can be organised, owned, controlled and funded by the government.
It clearly explains that any organised event like this comes under the POSH ACT, 2013.
Conclusion :
The Act pulling down the hijab of a woman was against the modesty of woman which made CM Nitish Kumar accountable for his action and make a criminal offense and some F.I.R. are already registered in this case. The modesty of women is not mention in constitution but court have been directed from time to time and define it in different cases. The workplace is a broad term which definitely include the event and made the woman “aggrieved women”. The moral values of a person also comes at this time the represented of state should act like professionally and as well as the officials behind them because modesty of woman is a sensible issue.
