The Supreme Court ruled that workplace admonitions by seniors do not constitute “intentional insult” under Section 504 of the IPC, emphasizing the importance of maintaining discipline without criminalizing professional conduct.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a senior’s admonition at the workplace does not amount to an “intentional insult” requiring criminal proceedings. The apex court emphasized that allowing criminal charges in such cases could cripple the disciplinary atmosphere required in a professional setting.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta clarified that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness, or insolence do not qualify as an intentional insult under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 504 of IPC deals with “intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace,” an offence punishable by up to two years in jail. However, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into effect in July 2024, this provision has now been replaced by Section 352.
The judgment came in response to a 2022 criminal case against the officiating director of the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities.
The complaint was filed by an assistant professor, who alleged that the director scolded and reprimanded her in front of other employees after she submitted complaints against him to higher authorities.
She further accused the director of failing to provide adequate PPE kits during the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming this posed a serious health risk.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed these claims, stating that the allegations were “purely conjectural” and did not justify criminal charges.
The apex court ruled that workplace admonitions, when related to discipline and professional responsibilities, do not constitute an “intentional insult” with the intent to provoke a breach of peace.
“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 stated.
ALSO READ: What is CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s Salary? Former CJI DY Chandrachud’s Pension Details
The court also emphasized that it is reasonable to expect employees to perform their duties with sincerity and dedication.
This judgment sets a clear precedent for workplace behavior, ensuring that professional discipline does not get misused as a criminal offense.
By quashing the case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that maintaining order and accountability in workplaces should not be misinterpreted as a criminal act.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES