Messages like ‘You are slim’ and ‘Are you married?’ sent to an unknown woman at night constitute obscenity: Court

Landmark Court Ruling Declares Unsolicited Personal Messages as Obscenity

In a groundbreaking verdict that challenges societal norms around digital communication, a Delhi court has ruled that seemingly "harmless" messages like "You are slim" and "Are you married?" sent to an unknown woman at night constitute obscenity and mental harassment. The judgment comes after a two-year legal battle fought by a 28-year-old marketing professional against a man who persistently messaged her despite her clear disinterest.  

The case began when the woman, whose identity has been protected, started receiving late-night WhatsApp messages from an unknown number. The sender, later identified as a man she had briefly met at a networking event, commented on her appearance and personal life with messages that escalated from "You're looking slim" to "Why aren't you replying?" and "Can we meet?" When her continued silence failed to deter him, she approached the police, filing a complaint under sections dealing with sexual harassment and insult to modesty.  

Metropolitan Magistrate Priya Sharma delivered a scathing observation in her verdict, stating: "Unsolicited personal messages, particularly at odd hours about a woman's appearance or marital status, cannot be dismissed as mere friendliness. When such communication continues despite clear disinterest, it crosses into harassment. Society must understand that 'no' means 'no' in digital spaces just as in physical ones." The court fined the accused ₹25,000 and mandated counseling, emphasizing that obscenity isn't limited to explicit content but includes any unwelcome communication that objectifies or causes discomfort.  

The ruling has sparked intense debate, with women's rights groups celebrating it as a crucial step toward safer online spaces, while some critics worry about potential overreach. Cyberlaw expert Adv. Rohan Seth clarified: "This judgment doesn't criminalize polite conversation. It specifically addresses persistent, unwanted messaging after clear signs of disinterest—a critical distinction in genuine harassment cases."

The complainant, visibly relieved after the verdict, shared: "I didn't want money—just recognition that such behavior is unacceptable. No woman should have to explain why 'innocent' messages feel threatening when they come repeatedly at night from a stranger."

As digital communication becomes increasingly pervasive, this ruling serves as a stark reminder of the need for respectful boundaries online. Legal experts advise documenting unwanted interactions early and utilizing platform blocking features, while the judgment itself sets a precedent that may reshape how courts interpret digital harassment in India. The message is clear: in the eyes of the law, persistence after rejection—whether in person or online—can no longer be dismissed as harmless.