The court noted that the complaint was filed by the woman with a delay and only after she was not selected for the show
The Telangana High Court, in a significant verdict, has held that discussing a woman’s body shape does not constitute the offence of sexual harassment under Section 354-A(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, in turn, quashed the criminal proceedings against executives of Star India Private Limited (Star Maa Division) who were facing allegations in connection with the selection process for the popular reality TV show Bigg Boss.
The court, presided by a single bench of Justice K Sujana, was hearing a petition filed by the Vice President and Assistant Vice President, Public Relations, of Star India Private Limited, seeking to quash the criminal charges against them, which were based on allegations of sexual harassment made by a journalist.
The complainant stated that in March 2019, she was contacted by an individual named Ravikanth (A1), who informed her that she had been selected for the show based on her popularity on social media. Meetings subsequently followed, including one with the Assistant Vice President (petitioner 1) and Vice President (petitioner 2) of Star India, where discussions about the show’s rules, remuneration, and terms took place. On June 4, 2019, during one such meeting at a restaurant, the Vice President allegedly used offensive language and questioned the complainant about how she would “satisfy his [SIC] boss” for selection into Bigg Boss. The complainant also alleged that comments were made about her body shape, insinuating that her physical appearance was relevant for her participation in the show. Feeling insulted and mentally distressed, the complainant filed a complaint with the police on July 13, 2019, accusing the executives of sexual harassment.
Subsequently, the criminal charges were filed under Sections 354-A(ii) and 509 of the IPC, dealing with the offences of sexual harassment by a demand or request for sexual favours and word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman, respectively.
Senior Advocate T Niranjan Reddy, representing the petitioners, argued that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold required to constitute an offence under Section 354-A(ii) of the IPC. It was contended that the statements attributed to the executives did not involve any demand for sexual favours and that the complainant’s remarks about body shape were insufficient to proceed with the charges. Furthermore, the counsel highlighted the 39-day delay in filing the complaint, which he argued was unreasonable, particularly given that the complainant was a journalist by profession.
On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor S Ganesh, maintained that the allegations were serious and warranted a trial. The state argued that the delay in filing the complaint should not absolve the accused and requested that the trial proceed without interference.
The court noted that the statement regarding how the complainant would “satisfy his boss” did not include any demand for sexual favours. It stated: “The only statement of 2nd respondent (complainant) is that the 2nd petitioner asked her as to how she would satisfy his boss, whereas there is no demand for sexual favour. Further, the discussion on body shape does not attract the offence under Section 354-A (ii) of I.P.C.”
The court also emphasised the unexplained delay of 39 days in filing the complaint, which further weakened the complainant’s case. The court observed that the complaint appeared to have been filed only after the complainant learned that she was not selected for the show.
As a result, the court allowed the petition and dismissed the charges against the Star India executives, holding that “continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed”.
