(a) Discuss the law relating to 'Assault or Criminal force' to woman with intent to 'Outrage her Modesty' and 'Sexual Harassment'…

Assault, criminal force and sexual harassment Section 354 IPC criminalises a man who assaults or uses criminal force on a woman, intending to outrage or knowing it is likely to outrage her modesty. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill identifies the ingredients: the accused must be a man; he must assault or use criminal force on a woman; he must intend to outrage her modesty or know it is likely; and the act must be of a character likely to insult her modesty. Section 354A, inserted after the 2013 amendment, defines sexual harassment more broadly as unwelcome sexually determined behaviour, whether direct or implied, including following or stalking, demanding sexual favour, making sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography or forcing a woman to watch it, and other unwelcome physical, verbal or electronic conduct. Its culpability often rests on the unwelcome or against-the-will nature of the conduct, not on a uniformly explicit sexualised intent. The difference is therefore in actus reus and mens rea: courts have treated 354 as contact-based, while 354A is a standalone non-contact offence. Both carry imprisonment up to five years, but 354A makes fine mandatory and covers a wider range of conduct. Overlap arises where contact is accompanied by unwelcome sexual conduct; the non-contact limb of 354A fills the gap left by 354.

E-commerce in Consumer Protection E-commerce was expressly brought within the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 because digital markets have expanded rapidly, creating information asymmetry, cross-border transactions, and weaker consumer bargaining power. Section 2(16) defines an e-commerce entity, while Chapter III empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority and the consumer redressal machinery provides grievance redressal for unfair trade practices, misleading advertisements, defective goods or deficient services across platforms. This was necessary because online sellers and marketplace operators can be distant from the consumer, making traditional redressal inadequate. The Act distinguishes marketplace and inventory-based platforms in its e-commerce liability provisions: a marketplace platform is not automatically liable for every act of a seller, but remains responsible for its own failure to take reasonable steps, while an inventory-based platform is liable as seller. Consequences of non-compliance include CCPA directions for recall or refund under Section 20, penalties for false or misleading advertisements under Section 72, and penalties for non-compliance with orders under Sections 88 and 89. Where the entity is a body corporate, persons in charge and responsible for its conduct may also be liable.

Private nuisance Private nuisance is an unreasonable and unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land. The interference must be direct, substantial and not merely trivial, and it must cause damage, whether physical, discomfort or amenity loss. Use of one’s own property is no defence if unreasonable; the locality principle in Sturges v. Bridgman shows that a sensitive use in a noisy locality may not recover for ordinary noise. Damages may be compensatory for past loss, or exemplary where the defendant’s conduct is oppressive, reckless or calculated. An injunction, prohibitory or mandatory, may restrain future interference or require removal of the nuisance. Abatement by self-help is limited to reasonable, temporary action that does not breach the peace or use disproportionate force. Statutory remedies may apply where a statute confers a right, but private nuisance is not ordinarily a representative public-nuisance suit under Section 91 CPC.

Together, these provisions show a common trajectory: criminal law protects bodily and sexual autonomy with graded offences; consumer law extends to digital marketplaces; and tort law balances property rights against unreasonable interference. The way forward is consistent enforcement through police, CCPA and courts.