Senior's Reprimand At Workplace For Official Duties Not Criminal Offence Of 'Intentional Insult' Under S 504 IPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a verbal reprimand at the workplace concerning official duties does not amount to a criminal offense under Section 504 IPC ('intentional insult with the intent to provoke breach of peace').

The Court observed that if the employer or superior official does not question employees work performance, then failing to address an employee's misconduct could set a precedent, encouraging others to behave similarly.

“If the interpretation advanced from the side of prosecution and the complainant is accepted, it may lead to gross misuse of liberty in workplaces. 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 Court observed.

The Court also observed that "mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence does not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC." Reference was made to the judgment in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 in this regard.

"If the accused does not intend to give provocation, the offence is not made out. An insult without an 'intention to insult' is not punishable under Section 504, IPC. Further, 'intentional insult' must be of such a degree that it has the potential to provoke a reasonable person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence," the Court added.

Holding so, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta quashed the case against the Director of the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (NIEPID), Secunderabad who reprimanded the complainant in front of colleagues following multiple complaints by parents of the students about her negligence in performing her duties.

Setting aside the Telangana High Court's decision which refused to quash the case, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that allowing criminal charges to be pressed against the Director of the Institute (workplace) for trying to maintain discipline may lead to disastrous consequences crippling the entire disciplinary atmosphere required in the workplace.

"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."

Finding it a fit case for quashing the case, the Court observed:

“We do not find existence of the necessary ingredients constituting the offences applied in the chargesheet so as to allow further prosecution of the appellant and hence, it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant.”, the court observed.

Case Title: B.V. RAM KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 192

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Challa Kodanrama, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR Mr. Parma Nand, Adv. Ms. Laxmi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Ms. Somaya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shri Singh, Adv. Mr. Harsh Parashar, AOR Mr. Chanakya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Arunima Nair, Adv.