The Delhi High Court has held that questions about a woman’s clothing have no legitimate place in a sexual harassment trial unless they are directly relevant to an issue in the case. The Court criticized the defence counsel’s line of cross-examination concerning the survivor’s clothing, observing that it appeared intended to embarrass, humiliate and morally judge her.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that a woman’s choice of clothing is a matter of personal choice and cannot be treated as a justification or excuse for unlawful conduct against her.
The Court also set aside the accused’s acquittal and convicted him under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily establish that the prosecutrix was a child, and therefore declined to sustain the charge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Introduction
The Court strongly criticized the questions put to the prosecutrix regarding her clothes during cross-examination.
Justice Sudha observed that what a woman chooses to wear is her personal choice and that neither society, the accused nor lawyers appearing before a court have the right to dictate her clothing.
The Court noted that the suggestion that a woman wearing jeans could “corrupt young boys” reflected an unacceptable mindset. It stressed that the responsibility lies with individuals to control their conduct and respect the personal boundaries and dignity of others.
The Court further held that a woman’s attire neither diminishes her dignity nor provides justification for unlawful conduct against her.
Legal Issue
The prosecution alleged that the accused had repeatedly stalked the prosecutrix and made sexually coloured remarks towards her.
According to the prosecution, on July 17, 2013, the accused approached the woman while she was returning home and touched her cheeks. When she objected to his conduct, he allegedly threatened her.
The trial court had acquitted the accused in 2014 of offences under Section 354A of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
The Delhi Police challenged the acquittal before the High Court.
Court Decision
While considering the POCSO charge, the High Court found that the prosecution had not satisfactorily established the age or minority of the prosecutrix.
Therefore, the Court held that the ingredients necessary to invoke the POCSO Act had not been established in the case.
However, on the charge under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, the Court found sufficient material to convict the accused.
Can a Legal Professional Question a Survivor About Her Clothes?
The Court held that cross-examination is an important right of an accused, but it is not an unrestricted licence to insult, shame, intimidate or harass a witness.
The Court found the questions concerning the prosecutrix’s clothing to be wholly irrelevant and improper. It observed that such questioning appeared to be a method of embarrassing and morally judging the woman based on her attire.
The Court said that questions based on regressive notions about how women should dress cannot be used as a device for character assassination or victim-blaming.
What Did the Court Say
The High Court emphasized that a trial judge cannot remain a passive spectator when cross-examination crosses the boundaries of relevance and propriety.
Where questioning is used to intimidate, insult, harass or shame a witness, the Court must intervene promptly and decisively.
The Court referred to Sections 146 to 152 of the Evidence Act while emphasizing that the process of cross-examination cannot be reduced to an instrument of humiliation or used to sacrifice the dignity of a witness in the name of testing credibility.
The Court also clarified that the advocate’s privilege to conduct cross-examination does not permit an attack on the dignity of a victim or witness.
Implications
The judgment reinforces that cross-examination must remain relevant, fair and respectful. Questions concerning a woman’s clothing, character, lifestyle, religion or personal choices cannot be introduced merely to shame or discredit her.
At the same time, the Court recognized that an accused has a right to a fair trial and effective cross-examination. However, that right cannot be converted into a means of subjecting a witness to humiliation or character assassination.
The Court stressed that judicial officers must ensure that court proceedings do not become a “second site of trauma” for victims or witnesses.
Direction
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi for circulation among judicial officers.
It also directed that a copy be sent to the Director (Academics) of the Delhi Judicial Academy so that the concerns raised in the judgment could be incorporated into appropriate judicial training and sensitisation programmes.
The High Court accordingly allowed the Delhi Police’s appeal, set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC.
Case Title: State v. Sajid Ali
