For Prelims: Section 75, BNS – Sexual Harassment, Criminal Intimidation (Section 351, BNS), Court, Judge, Key BNS Section, Case Name, Date of Judgment, Current Context
For Mains: Judicial interpretation, BNS vs IPC, threshold of sexual harassment, retraction of allegations, misuse of criminal law
Source:
Hindustan
5 facts for one-day exams
SSC, railway, police and teaching exams ask direct questions like these.
- Karnataka High Court ruled that inappropriate looking is not a demand for sexual favour under BNS Section 75(1)(ii).
- The judgment was delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj.
- The case is Hafeez Khasim vs State of Karnataka.
- The judgment date is November 2, 2026.
- The court quashed charges under BNS Sections 75(1)(ii), 75(1)(iv), 351(2), and 352.
Why in the news?
The Karnataka High Court ruled that merely 'looking inappropriately' at a woman does not constitute a 'demand or request for sexual favour' under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court quashed criminal proceedings against a man after the complainant withdrew most allegations but maintained he only looked at her inappropriately. The judgment clarifies the scope of sexual harassment provisions under BNS.
Summary
- Karnataka High Court held that 'looking inappropriately' is not a demand for sexual favour under BNS Section 75(1)(ii).
- The ruling came in the case of Hafeez Khasim vs State of Karnataka on November 2, 2026, before Justice Suraj Govindaraj.
- The court quashed charges under BNS Sections 75(1)(ii), 75(1)(iv), 351(2), and 352 after the complainant retracted most allegations.
Highlights
Clarification on BNS Section 75
The Karnataka High Court ruled that 'inappropriate looking' does not amount to a 'demand for sexual favour' under BNS Section 75(1)(ii).
Complainant's Retraction
The woman retracted most of her initial allegations, stating the accused did not demand sex or threaten her, only looked at her inappropriately.
Proceedings Quashed
The court quashed charges under four BNS sections, noting no other evidence supported the retracted allegations.
Background
The case arose from a woman's complaint that when she visited the accused's home to resolve a financial dispute, he demanded sexual favours in exchange for money and benefits, and threatened physical harm if she did not repay. Police registered charges under BNS Sections 75(1)(ii) (demand for sexual favour), 75(1)(iv) (sexually coloured remarks), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace).
Key Analysis and Impact
During investigation, the woman gave a subsequent statement retracting most allegations, admitting the accused did not demand sex, promise money, or threaten her. Only the allegation of 'looking inappropriately' remained. Despite this, police included the original charges in the charge sheet. The High Court held that a mere allegation of 'inappropriate looking' cannot sustain charges of demanding sexual favours under BNS 75(1)(ii), especially when the complainant herself denied the core allegations. The judgment reinforces that the threshold for sexual harassment under BNS requires a clear 'demand or request' for sexual favour, not just suggestive behaviour.
Background GK
Textbook concepts you need to understand this news
- Section 75, BNS – Sexual Harassment
- Section 75 of the BNS defines the offence of sexual harassment, including demands for sexual favours (clause ii), sexually coloured remarks (clause iv), and other unwelcome physical or verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
- Criminal Intimidation (Section 351, BNS)
- Section 351 of the BNS defines criminal intimidation as threatening another person with injury to their person, reputation, or property, with intent to cause alarm or compel action.
Facts to remember
Tap a card to see the answer. Try to recall it first.
How exams will ask this
- Data: Karnataka High Court judgment dated November 2, 2026, in Hafeez Khasim vs State of Karnataka
- Legal Point: Section 75(1)(ii), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – demand for sexual favour
- Nodal Body: Karnataka High Court
Don't make this mistake!
Examiners may confuse BNS Section 75(1)(ii) with IPC Section 354A (sexual harassment) or swap it with BNS Section 74 (rape). They may also test whether the judgment says 'inappropriate looking' is never sexual harassment (false – it is just not a 'demand for sexual favour' under that specific clause).
Write these in mains answers
- Judicial interpretation, BNS vs IPC, threshold of sexual harassment, retraction of allegations, misuse of criminal law
Stuck? Get it in one tap
The Karnataka High Court said that if a man looks at a woman in a bad way, it does not mean he is asking her for sex under the law. The law under BNS Section 75(1)(ii) only applies when someone clearly asks for sexual favour. In this case, the woman later said the man did not ask for sex, so the court cancelled the case against him.
- Karnataka High Court ruled that inappropriate looking is not a demand for sexual favour under BNS Section 75(1)(ii).
- The judgment was delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj.
- The case is Hafeez Khasim vs State of Karnataka.
- The judgment date is November 2, 2026.
- The court quashed charges under BNS Sections 75(1)(ii), 75(1)(iv), 351(2), and 352.
- Polity: Judiciary – High Courts
- Governance: Criminal Law – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Related concepts: Section 75, BNS – Sexual Harassment, Criminal Intimidation (Section 351, BNS)
Practice questions
Pick an answer, then read the explanation.
- Q1Easy
Which High Court delivered the judgment that 'looking inappropriately at a woman' does not constitute a demand for sexual favour under BNS Section 75(1)(ii)?
Explanation: The judgment was delivered by the Karnataka High Court, specifically by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, in the case of Hafeez Khasim vs State of Karnataka. The Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, and Bombay High Court were not involved in this case.
- Q2Medium
On which date did the Karnataka High Court deliver the judgment in Hafeez Khasim vs State of Karnataka?
Explanation: The judgment was delivered on November 2, 2026. October 2, 2026, is close but incorrect, while December 2, 2026, and January 2, 2027, are later dates not matching the actual judgment date.
- Q3Medium
What is the primary legal significance of the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Hafeez Khasim vs State of Karnataka?
Explanation: The court specifically ruled that 'inappropriate looking' does not meet the threshold of a 'demand or request for sexual favour' under Section 75(1)(ii). It did not broaden the definition (option A is false), did not say all retractions lead to quashing (option C is false), and did not introduce a new section (option D is false).
Frequently asked questions
1. What did the Karnataka High Court rule about looking inappropriately at a woman?
The court ruled that merely looking inappropriately at a woman does not constitute a 'demand or request for sexual favour' under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
2. Which BNS section deals with demand for sexual favour?
Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, deals with the offence of demanding or requesting sexual favour as part of sexual harassment.
3. Who delivered the judgment in Hafeez Khasim vs State of Karnataka?
The judgment was delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court on November 2, 2026.
All sources
- Original7 November 2026 · Read story
