Bombay High Court: Calling a man ‘impotent’ is defamatory, affects adversely

In a landmark judgement given by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, said that calling a person ‘impotent’ is defamatory and it adversely affects his manhood.

This ruling came into existence while dismissing wife’s application for discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated against her on husband’s complaint, the HC directed that usage of such word constitute the offence of defamation.

According to many, the ruling would help a lot of husbands facing divorce cases where ‘impotency’ is often cited as one of the reasons by wives for separation along with dowry, domestic violence and harassment.

A single-judge bench comprising justice Sunil Shukre held, “Prima facie, the word ‘impotent’, when understood in plain and grammatical sense, reflects adversely upon person’s manhood and has a tendency to invite derisive opinions about him from others. Therefore, its usage and publication as contemplated under Section 499 (damage to reputation) would be sufficient to constitute the offence of defamation under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of IPC.”

However, refusing to interfere in the ongoing criminal proceedings, the judge further clarified that even if the expression ‘impotent person’ is read in all its contextual setting, particularly in the childbirth by adopting a medical procedure on gynaecologist’s suggestion, still the apparent harm that the expression causes, is not diluted or washed out.

In the case that prompted the judge to pass the judgement, the relations between the couple having a daughter got strained after wife left for her maternal house on November 21, 2016. The complainant later filed a divorce case in family court, which granted the daughter’s interim custody to father. The lady then went ahead to challenge the order in HC where she raised aspersions on husband’s potency and capacity to engage into a physical relationship.

Extremely disturbed over her allegations, the man lodged a complaint against his wife and in-laws for defamation and offences under Sections 500 and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of IPC. Eventually, the judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) then instituted an inquiry. After receiving wife’s statement and examining witnesses’, the concerned judge further issued orders to register criminal offence against the wife under Sections 500 and 506 on July 24 last year, which she again challenged in HC.

Later on, the wife contended that she wanted to avoid writing about husband’s impotency in her plea, but his conduct compelled her to write that their child was born by medical ovulation period technique as suggested by the gynaecologist.

Justice Shukre observed that the petitioner had earlier issued a threat to her husband of causing harm to his reputation, if he didn’t follow her instructions.

The judge further said, “Reading her allegations without adding/subtracting anything from it, one gets an impression that it’s defamatory in character and has been, prima facie, calculated to cause harm or injury to husband’s reputation. It also gives an impression that apparently, it has been made with consciousness about the repercussion that such a statement would have on his life.”

Also read: World Pneumonia Day: Pneumonia to kill 11 million children by 2030