BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1997 SC 3011(2012) 9 SCC 1
BailableCognizable: CognizableAny Magistrate
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 354A to BNS 75.
2
Retained the four-part definition covering physical contact, demands, pornography, and verbal remarks.
3
Bail status differentiation maintained — verbal remarks remain bailable and non-cognizable.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
(1) A man committing any of the following acts— (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
Legal Commentary
Section 75 codifies sexual harassment as a distinct criminal offence — separate from the broader molestation provision in BNS 74 — recognising that harassment often does not involve direct physical contact but is nonetheless deeply harmful. The section covers four categories of conduct: unwelcome physical contact with explicit sexual intent (category i), demands for sexual favours including quid pro quo arrangements (category ii), showing pornography against the woman's will (category iii), and making sexually coloured remarks (category iv). The distinction matters for bail: categories i–iii are cognizable and bailable, while category iv (verbal remarks) is bailable and non-cognizable — reflecting the legislature's view that while all four forms are wrongful, a verbal remark carries different consequences from physical contact or extortion. The section is specifically gendered — 'a man committing' — making it a gender-specific protection for women. This reflects the statistical reality of sexual harassment but has been criticised as excluding male victims. The relationship between BNS 75 and the POSH Act (Prevention, Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013) is important: POSH provides civil remedies and an internal complaints mechanism at the workplace, while BNS 75 provides criminal sanctions. Both can be pursued simultaneously.
Landmark Precedents
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
RELEVANCE
Landmark Supreme Court judgment that recognised sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of fundamental rights and laid down the 'Vishaka Guidelines' — the basis for India's eventual POSH Act and the criminal law's approach to Section 75.
Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012)
RELEVANCE
Supreme Court directed all states to comply with Vishaka Guidelines, reinforcing that workplace sexual harassment has serious legal consequences — the momentum that created IPC 354A (now BNS 75).
Case Simulations
"A manager who demands sexual favours from a female subordinate in exchange for a promotion — BNS 75(1)(ii) (demand for sexual favours/quid pro quo harassment)."
"A man who sends repeated explicit images to a woman on Instagram after she has asked him to stop — BNS 75(1)(iii)."
"A colleague who makes continuous lewd comments and sexual jokes about a woman in a group chat — BNS 75(1)(iv), bailable, non-cognizable."
"A gym trainer who makes unwelcome physical advances on a female member — BNS 75(1)(i)."
Expert Insights
No. The section specifically states 'A man committing...' — it is a gender-specific provision. A woman who sexually harasses another person would need to be prosecuted under other applicable provisions, a gap that critics of the legislation have highlighted.
Yes — showing pornography against the will of a woman (category iii) and making sexually coloured remarks (category iv) include digital communications. Sending unsolicited explicit images via WhatsApp or making lewd comments in DMs can constitute BNS 75 offences.
Both operate simultaneously. POSH provides a civil workplace remedy through an Internal Complaints Committee and can lead to employment consequences. BNS 75 is the criminal track, leading to arrest, trial, and imprisonment. An employee can pursue both tracks simultaneously.