The Criminalisation of Emotional Abuse: Can Psychological Violence Be Punished as a Crime?

Author: Samarth Jalhotra
Student, Chaudhary charan singh university

—————————————————————————–

💡 3 Quick Takeaways

Emotional abuse can cause serious harm: Repeated humiliation, intimidation, isolation, threats and coercive control may undermine a person’s dignity, autonomy and psychological well-being, even without physical injury.
Existing legal protection is fragmented: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses certain forms of abusive conduct, while the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, expressly recognises verbal and emotional abuse within its statutory framework.
Reform requires careful limits: A narrowly defined, gender-neutral offence of serious psychological abuse could be considered, but it must distinguish persistent or coercive abuse from ordinary disagreements and protect against arbitrary prosecution.

Abstract

Emotional abuse often remains invisible because it does not necessarily produce physical injuries. Repeated humiliation, intimidation, threats, manipulation, isolation, coercive control and verbal degradation can nevertheless affect an individual’s dignity, autonomy and psychological well-being. Although Indian criminal law recognises certain forms of conduct that may cause psychological harm, it does not presently establish one comprehensive, gender-neutral criminal offence covering emotional abuse as such. Instead, the applicability of existing provisions depends on the nature of the conduct, the relationship between the individuals involved and the statutory requirements.

This article examines the possibility of criminalising emotional abuse within the Indian legal framework, particularly in light of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other relevant laws. It distinguishes psychological abuse from ordinary interpersonal disagreements, considers judicial approaches to mental cruelty and examines the evidentiary difficulties associated with proving conduct that may occur privately and progressively. It argues that protection against serious psychological violence should not depend exclusively on the gender of the victim or the alleged perpetrator. At the same time, any new offence must be clearly defined to prevent over-criminalisation and misuse. A narrowly framed, gender-neutral offence addressing serious, repeated or intentional abusive conduct may offer a possible approach to balancing these concerns.

Keywords: Emotional abuse, psychological violence, gender neutrality, coercive control, criminal law, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, mental cruelty, domestic violence, criminalisation, human dignity.

I. Introduction

When we hear the word “violence”, we often think of physical harm. We imagine an injury, an assault or a visible sign that someone has been hurt. Emotional abuse is different. It may leave no bruise or physical wound, but that does not make the suffering less real. Repeated insults, threats, humiliation, isolation and controlling behaviour can seriously affect a person’s confidence, dignity and ability to make independent decisions. In some situations, the person experiencing such behaviour may not immediately recognise it as abuse.

One of the principal difficulties in identifying emotional abuse is that it may develop gradually rather than through a single dramatic incident. An isolated insult may initially appear harmless, constant monitoring may be presented as concern, and controlling behaviour may be justified as an expression of love or protection. Over time, however, these actions may create an environment in which an individual feels frightened, dependent or unable to make decisions freely. This gradual development can make psychological violence difficult to recognise and address through criminal law.

At the same time, not every argument or hurtful interaction should be treated as a criminal offence. People disagree, lose their temper, make mistakes and say things they later regret. Conflict is a part of personal and professional relationships, and criminal law cannot reasonably regulate every unpleasant interaction. The central question is where the law should draw the line: when does ordinary conflict become a pattern of behaviour intended to control, intimidate, humiliate or seriously harm another person?

This question is particularly relevant in India because there is no single, comprehensive criminal offence specifically addressing emotional or psychological abuse in all contexts. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, contains provisions that may apply to particular forms of abusive conduct. Threats, certain intentional insults, stalking and specified forms of cruelty may attract legal consequences when the relevant statutory requirements are satisfied. However, these provisions address particular acts and circumstances rather than creating one general, gender-neutral offence of psychological violence.

Indian law nevertheless recognises that abuse can take forms other than physical violence. Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, expressly includes verbal and emotional abuse within the statutory definition of domestic violence. This is an important recognition that words and behaviour can cause legally significant harm. However, the Act is specifically designed to protect women in the circumstances covered by its provisions; it does not establish a general criminal offence of psychological abuse applicable to every person in every relationship.

This raises the question of gender neutrality. Emotional abuse is not experienced exclusively by one gender. A person may experience psychological violence within an intimate relationship, a family, a workplace or another setting involving trust, dependence or an imbalance of power. Although the circumstances differ from case to case, the underlying harm may be serious regardless of the victim’s gender. A gender-neutral approach would focus on the conduct and its seriousness rather than automatically assuming the identity of the victim or perpetrator.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this protection to include the right to live with human dignity. Repeated humiliation, intimidation or controlling behaviour may raise concerns about dignity, autonomy and personal freedom. However, recognising psychological harm does not automatically mean that every instance should attract criminal punishment.

A broadly worded offence could encompass ordinary disagreements, criticism, family arguments or conduct that causes emotional discomfort without reaching the threshold of criminality. Criminal offences must be sufficiently clear to allow individuals to understand what conduct is prohibited and enable courts to apply the law consistently.

Proving psychological abuse presents additional difficulties. Much of the conduct may occur privately, without independent witnesses or visible injuries. Relevant evidence may include messages, emails, call records, legally admissible recordings, testimony from individuals who observed a pattern of behaviour, and medical or psychological evidence where appropriate. The significance of an incident may become apparent only when it is examined alongside a continuing pattern of conduct.

Indian courts have already considered the legal consequences of mental suffering. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the Supreme Court explained that mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes cannot be assessed through an inflexible formula because the circumstances of each case matter. Although matrimonial cruelty is distinct from a standalone criminal offence of emotional abuse, the decision illustrates the importance of examining psychological suffering in its factual context.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether emotional abuse can be harmful. It is whether criminal law should intervene and, if so, what conduct should cross the criminal threshold. Any reform must protect individuals from serious psychological violence without turning every personal disagreement into a criminal case.

II. Understanding Emotional and Psychological Abuse

Emotional abuse is not limited to the use of abusive words. It may involve a repeated pattern of behaviour through which one person attempts to frighten, control, humiliate, isolate or emotionally weaken another. Examples may include persistent insults, threats, belittling, manipulation, deliberate isolation from family or friends, excessive monitoring, controlling access to money or communication, and repeatedly undermining another person’s ability to make independent decisions.

Psychological abuse can be difficult to identify because individual incidents may appear insignificant when separated from the wider pattern. Repeatedly checking another person’s phone, deciding whom they may speak to, threatening to disclose private information, questioning their movements or humiliating them in front of others may initially be dismissed as jealousy, anger or a relationship problem. When such behaviour is repeated and used to exercise control, however, its cumulative impact may be considerably more serious.

The issue is not simply whether a particular act caused hurt feelings. It is whether the conduct, considered in context, was used to intimidate, dominate, isolate or cause sustained psychological harm.

Emotional abuse is not confined to intimate relationships. It may occur within families, workplaces, educational institutions, friendships or other relationships involving trust or dependence. Technology has also created additional means of exercising psychological control. Repeated unwanted messages, online monitoring, threats through social media, public humiliation and the misuse of private information can allow abusive behaviour to continue even when individuals are physically apart.

The BNS, for example, recognises criminal intimidation under Section 351. Depending on the circumstances, a threat communicated through electronic or other means may fall within the provision if its statutory requirements are satisfied. However, not every threatening or distressing interaction necessarily constitutes criminal intimidation.

A fundamental distinction must therefore be maintained between emotional harm and emotional abuse. Disagreement, criticism, rejection and angry arguments may cause emotional distress without necessarily amounting to criminal conduct.

Any proposed criminalisation should consider the nature and seriousness of the behaviour, including its repetition, intention, use of coercion or threats, abuse of power and the circumstances in which it occurred. This distinction is particularly important when considering gender neutrality. The law should assess the facts of each case rather than presume that only a particular gender can be a victim or perpetrator.

The absence of physical injury should not cause serious psychological violence to be dismissed. Equally, the existence of emotional distress should not, by itself, establish criminal liability. A clear threshold of seriousness is necessary to recognise genuine psychological abuse while ensuring that ordinary disputes are not unnecessarily criminalised.

III. The Existing Indian Legal Framework

Indian law does not currently treat emotional abuse as one separate, comprehensive criminal offence. Depending on the facts, different forms of psychological abuse may fall within existing legal provisions.

Section 351 of the BNS addresses criminal intimidation. It concerns threats involving injury to a person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of someone in whom the threatened person is interested, when the statutory requirements concerning intention are met. The provision may apply where threats are used to frighten or control another person. However, its scope is determined by the statutory ingredients of criminal intimidation, not by the mere existence of psychological distress.

Section 352 of the BNS addresses intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. An insult does not become a criminal offence merely because it hurts someone’s feelings. The provision requires the relevant intention or knowledge concerning provocation and the likelihood of a breach of the peace or another offence, as specified by law. This illustrates a limitation of the existing framework: conduct may be emotionally harmful without necessarily satisfying the ingredients of a recognised offence.

Another relevant statute is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 3 expressly includes verbal and emotional abuse within the statutory concept of domestic violence. This is significant because it recognises that abuse in a domestic relationship is not necessarily physical. However, the Act operates within its defined protective framework and does not create a general, gender-neutral criminal offence applicable to every instance of psychological abuse.

The courts have also examined mental suffering in matrimonial disputes. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the Supreme Court explained that mental cruelty cannot be determined through a single, inflexible formula and that the circumstances of each case must be considered. The judgment also supports the need to distinguish serious cruelty from ordinary quarrels, minor irritations and the usual difficulties of married life.

These legal provisions and judicial approaches provide safeguards against certain forms of conduct that may cause psychological harm. Nevertheless, they operate through different legal frameworks, each with its own requirements. Serious emotional abuse that does not fit comfortably within an existing offence may therefore remain difficult to address through criminal law.

IV. Challenges in Criminalising Emotional Abuse

The central challenge is determining what behaviour should be treated as criminal and what should remain outside the reach of criminal law. Emotional suffering is experienced differently by different individuals. The same words or actions may affect people in different ways, depending on their circumstances and the wider context.

If an offence is drafted too broadly, ordinary arguments, relationship difficulties, criticism or isolated hurtful comments could potentially become the subject of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s discussion of mental cruelty in Samar Ghosh reinforces the importance of considering the full circumstances rather than treating every disagreement or irritation as cruelty.

A second challenge concerns evidence. Psychological violence often occurs privately and develops over time. There may be no eyewitnesses or physical injuries. Messages, emails, call records, legally admissible recordings and testimony about a continuing pattern of conduct may therefore become important. Courts would need to consider the overall circumstances rather than relying exclusively on a single incident or an isolated statement.

The third challenge concerns the consequences of criminal proceedings. Criminal prosecution can carry serious implications for the accused, making clear statutory language and reliable evidence essential. A new offence should not rest solely on a person’s subjective experience of being hurt. It should require proof of clearly defined elements demonstrating that the conduct crossed the threshold from ordinary conflict to criminal abuse.

This does not mean that psychological suffering should be disregarded because it is difficult to prove. Rather, the law must develop a fair method of identifying serious abuse while ensuring that allegations are assessed through established evidentiary and procedural standards.

These concerns are particularly important in family and relationship disputes, where allegations may arise during already difficult personal circumstances. A carefully designed offence should protect genuine victims without becoming an instrument for punishing ordinary disagreements or resolving personal conflicts through criminal prosecution.

V. The Need for a Gender-Neutral Approach and Legal Reform

If psychological violence is recognised as a distinct form of serious harm, the question of protection should be considered in a manner that does not automatically exclude individuals because of their gender. The focus should be on the nature of the conduct, its seriousness and the circumstances in which it occurs.

A gender-neutral approach would reflect the principle that every individual is entitled to dignity and personal liberty. It would also require careful consideration of how an offence should interact with existing statutes that provide specific protections to particular groups.

One possible reform would be a narrowly worded offence covering serious psychological abuse, particularly where the conduct is repeated, intentional or coercive and substantially interferes with a person’s dignity, autonomy or sense of safety.

The proposed offence should define the prohibited conduct clearly. It could require courts to consider the duration and frequency of the behaviour, the relationship between the parties, the use of threats or coercion, the relevant context and the seriousness of the alleged harm. The precise statutory elements would need to be carefully formulated to provide legal certainty.

Safeguards would also be necessary to prevent ordinary disagreements from being criminalised. The offence should not treat every insult, argument or emotionally painful experience as sufficient for prosecution. Nor should it assume that a particular gender is inherently more likely to be a victim or an offender.

A new offence would not need to replace existing provisions. Instead, it could be considered as a means of addressing serious psychological abuse that does not adequately fall within offences such as criminal intimidation or intentional insult. Its relationship with existing domestic-violence protections, matrimonial law and other applicable statutes would need to be clearly defined.

The BNS already recognises certain forms of harmful conduct, including threats made through different means of communication. This demonstrates that criminal law can address conduct occurring through modern communication technologies. However, extending criminal liability to a broader category of psychological abuse would require a separate and carefully reasoned legislative assessment.

Ultimately, reform should pursue two objectives: providing meaningful protection against serious psychological violence and preserving the clarity, fairness and proportionality required of criminal law.

VI. Conclusion

Like physical injury, emotional abuse may cause serious and lasting harm even when it leaves no visible mark. Repeated humiliation, intimidation, isolation, threats and coercive control can affect a person’s dignity, autonomy and psychological well-being.

Indian law already provides remedies for certain forms of psychological harm. The BNS addresses specific conduct, including criminal intimidation and intentional insult, while the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, expressly recognises verbal and emotional abuse within its statutory framework. Judicial decisions such as Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh also demonstrate the importance of examining mental suffering in its factual context.

However, these protections are distributed across different legal provisions and do not amount to one comprehensive, gender-neutral criminal offence of emotional abuse.

Criminalisation must nevertheless be approached with caution. Not every argument, insult or relationship problem should become a criminal offence. The law must maintain a clear distinction between ordinary conflict and conduct that is persistent, coercive, threatening or sufficiently serious to justify criminal intervention.

A narrowly defined, gender-neutral offence of serious psychological violence could therefore be considered as a possible legal reform. Any such provision would need clear statutory elements, reliable evidentiary standards and safeguards against over-criminalisation and misuse.

The objective should be to ensure that the absence of physical injury does not cause serious psychological violence to be ignored, while preserving the fairness, clarity and proportionality of criminal law. Recognising psychological harm is important, but the legal response must be designed with equal care.

References

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, §§ 78, 85, 351–352.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, § 3.
Constitution of India, art. 21.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511.
World Health Organization, Understanding and Addressing Violence Against Women: Intimate Partner Violence (2012).

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Lawscape.

The Lawscape — clear, practical legal insight for students and future lawyers.