Workplace reprimand not a criminal offence: SC
A senior’s reprimand at the workplace does not amount to an “intentional insult” warranting criminal proceedings against the former, the Supreme Court has ruled
A senior’s reprimand at the workplace does not amount to an “intentional insult” warranting criminal proceedings against the former, the Supreme Court has ruled, emphasising that interpreting penal provisions otherwise would have “disastrous consequences crippling the entire disciplinary atmosphere required in the workplace”.
Also Read: ‘High handedness’, ‘inhuman conduct’: When courts slammed ED investigations
The top court clarified that proceedings under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be invoked unless it is proven that the rebuke was intended to provoke the subordinate to commit an offence or breach public peace, underlining that any other interpretation “may lead to gross misuse of liberty in workplaces”. The offence, punishable with a jail term up to two years, has been replaced with Section 352 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – effective from July 2024.
Also Read: Why the SC will examine law allowing convicted lawmakers to make a comeback
A bench comprising justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta delivered this ruling while quashing a 2022 criminal case against the officiating director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), who was accused of insulting an assistant professor. The complainant had alleged that the director reprimanded her in a loud voice for having submitted complaints against him to higher authorities, which allegedly caused her emotional distress and aggravated her medical condition post-Covid-19.
Also Read: SC dissolves CMJ University, upholds Meghalaya govt’s 2014 order
The bench found that the allegations in the charge sheet were “purely conjectural” and failed to meet the legal threshold required to sustain the criminal charges. It noted that workplace discipline and professional expectations were heightened during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the director’s actions should be viewed in that context.
“It is a reasonable expectation on the part of a person who caters to the affairs at the helm that his juniors should attend to their professional duties with utmost sincerity and dedication,” the judgment, delivered on February 10, held.
It also highlighted that several complaints about workplace indiscipline and negligence were pending against the complainant. The director, as the head of the institution, had the authority to address concerns regarding professionalism and discipline, said the court, adding that the reprimand was part of his administrative functions and could not be interpreted as an “intentional insult” aimed at provoking the complainant into breaking public peace or committing an offence.
The court further referred to its previous ruling in Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra, which laid down that an offence under Section 504 of IPC requires the accused to have intentionally insulted another person with the knowledge that it would likely provoke the person to commit a crime. The mere use of harsh words, discourtesy, or even rudeness does not meet this threshold.
The bench stressed that allowing such criminal cases to proceed against senior officials for reprimanding subordinates would set a dangerous precedent and disrupt workplace discipline. “The intention behind this was simply to control the perceived indiscipline of the subordinates who were alleged to be shirking from the performance of their duties and were displaying lethargic, lackadaisical and laid-back approach towards the profession. If such a behaviour is not checked by superior officers, who have been entrusted with the task of administration, it could lead to become a premium for other employees to follow suit,” it maintained.
In the present case, the complainant, an assistant professor at the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities in Secunderabad, was summoned by the director to his chamber on February 2, 2022. The director allegedly addressed her in a “high-pitched voice”, questioning whether she had considered conduct rules before submitting grievances against him. The complainant protested, citing health issues post-Covid-19, and subsequently filed a police complaint.
On February 5, 2022, an FIR was registered under sections 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection), 270 (malignant act likely to spread disease), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) of IPC. A charge sheet was later filed against the director, primarily alleging failure to provide adequate PPE kits during the Covid-19 pandemic and that the reprimand amounted to mental harassment.
The director moved the Telangana high court seeking quashing of the proceedings, but the plea was rejected in May last year. The high court held that the allegations were serious and required trial. The director then approached the Supreme Court, which quashed the criminal proceedings against the director, pointing out that a workplace rebuke, without more, does not attract criminal liability under Section 504 of IPC. It also noted that the other charges regarding failure to provide PPE kits was also not proved.