In a landmark judgment that reinforces the boundaries between personal expression and criminal conduct, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that proposing love to someone, including saying “I love you,” does not, in itself, constitute a crime.
The court’s decision, which acquitted a man previously convicted of stalking and sexual harassment, serves as a crucial clarification on the application of laws like the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code, while championing the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
The Case That Sparked the Debate
The case revolved around Manish Khatri, a 31-year-old man from Janjgir-Champa district, who was accused of stalking and harassing a 14-year-old minor girl. According to the prosecution, Khatri had professed his love for the girl and had allegedly followed her. Based on the girl’s complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against him.
In May 2024, a trial court found Khatri guilty under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for stalking and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for sexual harassment. He was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
Khatri challenged this conviction, bringing the matter before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The High Court’s Nuanced Verdict
Delivering the judgment, Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari meticulously dissected the charges and the evidence presented. The court’s ruling hinged on a fundamental distinction between a simple expression of affection and a pattern of behaviour that constitutes a criminal offence.
The court observed that the evidence presented did not establish the essential ingredients of stalking or sexual harassment. The core of the High Court’s reasoning can be broken down into several key points:
1. A Proposal Is Not Stalking
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that Khatri repeatedly followed the girl or attempted to contact her against her will. For an act to be considered stalking under Section 354D of the IPC, there must be a clear pattern of repeated and unwanted pursuit that causes fear or distress.
Justice Tiwari noted that the incident was, at its core, a one-time proposal. “Proposing a girl, even a minor, cannot be considered a sexual assault,” the court stated, clarifying that a singular expression of love, without any further unwanted advances, does not meet the legal threshold for stalking.
2. “I Love You” Does Not Outrage Modesty
The court firmly asserted that the act of saying “I love you” does not inherently amount to outraging a woman’s modesty. For an act to fall under this category, there must be a clear criminal intent to insult or offend the dignity of the woman.
“It would not be a case of outraging the modesty of the girl,” the court reasoned. “At the most, it is a case of proposal.” This interpretation prevents the criminalization of a common social expression, provided it is not accompanied by vulgarity, threats, or force.
3. No Sexual Intent, No POCSO Offence
Addressing the conviction under the stringent POCSO Act, the High Court concluded that the act lacked the “sexual intent” necessary to qualify as sexual harassment under Section 12. The court emphasized that merely expressing feelings of love, without any physical contact or sexually explicit undertones, does not fall within the ambit of the Act.
The judgment is significant as it acts as a safeguard against the potential misuse of the POCSO Act, which is designed to protect children from grave sexual crimes, not to penalize expressions of romantic interest, however unwelcome or inappropriate they may be.
Upholding Freedom of Speech and Expression
At its heart, the Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling is a robust defense of the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court upheld that expressing one’s feelings is a fundamental aspect of this right.
“It is the right of a person to express his love to another,” the judgment powerfully stated, adding that it is up to the recipient to accept or reject the proposal. This observation places the onus on the individual’s response, distinguishing between a simple proposal and persistent harassment that follows a rejection.
The Fine Line: Expression vs. Harassment
While the verdict protects genuine expression, it is crucial to understand that it does not provide a license for harassment. The court’s decision is highly specific to the facts of the case, where there was no evidence of:
- Repetition: The act was a singular proposal, not a relentless campaign.
- Force or Coercion: There were no threats or intimidation involved.
- Physical Contact: The interaction was purely verbal.
- Vulgarity: The language used was not obscene or sexually explicit.
Had any of these elements been present, the outcome would likely have been very different. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that harassment begins when an expression is repeatedly forced upon an unwilling recipient, causing them fear or alarm.
Broader Implications for Law and Society
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment has far-reaching implications:
- Prevents Criminalization of Social Interaction: It prevents the law from being used to criminalize awkward or unwelcome, but otherwise harmless, romantic proposals.
- Clarity for Law Enforcement: It provides much-needed clarity to police and lower courts on how to interpret and apply laws related to stalking and harassment, ensuring they are used to target genuine criminal behaviour.
- Protects Against Misuse of Law: It serves as a check against the misuse of powerful laws like POCSO to settle personal vendettas or in cases involving teenage relationships.
A Victory for Reason and Rights
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision to acquit Manish Khatri is a testament to judicial prudence. It delivers a nuanced and mature interpretation of laws that are critical for protecting women and children, while simultaneously ensuring that the fundamental right to expression is not unduly curtailed.
By drawing a clear line between a simple, albeit perhaps ill-advised, proposal of love and the criminal acts of stalking and harassment, the court has reaffirmed a core legal principle: for an act to be a crime, it must be backed by criminal intent. In a society grappling with evolving social norms, this judgment provides a vital and sensible legal precedent, reminding us that while consent is paramount, not every unwelcome word is a crime.
