There are “Dirty minds not clothes”, the Delhi High Court has recently reiterated an important principle in sexual-offence jurisprudence: the personal choices of a survivor cannot be placed on trial in an attempt to determine whether an offence was committed. In a judgment delivered in the State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sajid Ali on August 10, 2026, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha overturned the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court and found the accused guilty on the evidence before the Court. The proceedings had attracted particular attention because the survivor's clothing and other aspects of her personal life had been relied upon during the trial. The survivor was seventeen years old when the alleged incident occurred. Instead of confining the inquiry to the circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct, portions of the defence case focused on matters such as the clothes she wore, her family environment and the religious background of people around her.
The High Court rejected this approach.
A survivor's clothes are not Evidence of Consent or Conduct. One of the strongest aspects of the judgment is its rejection of the assumption that clothing can provide an explanation for sexual misconduct. The Court made it clear that what a woman chooses to wear is a matter of personal autonomy. It cannot reasonably be converted into evidence about her character, credibility or willingness to participate in sexual conduct. The judgment stated: "Neither her neighbours nor society, nor the accused, nor counsel has any right to dictate her clothing. "The observation is significant because arguments based on appearance often introduce an entirely different question into sexual-offence proceedings: how the complainant behaved or dressed, rather than what the accused allegedly did. That approach can be particularly problematic where the complainant is a minor or otherwise vulnerable. Cross-Examination Is not a licence to humiliate. The defence has a legitimate right to test the prosecution's evidence. Questions concerning a witness's credibility, inconsistencies in testimony and matters relevant to the issues before the court can form part of effective cross-examination. However, that right has boundaries. A question does not become relevant merely because it is capable of embarrassing a witness. Nor can personal humiliation be justified by describing it as an attempt to test credibility. The High Court therefore drew a distinction between legitimate forensic scrutiny and personal attacks having no evidentiary relevance. This distinction is particularly important in sexual-offence cases, where insensitive questioning can itself become a source of secondary trauma.
Judicial Responsibility During Trial
The judgment places considerable responsibility on trial judges to control the manner in which vulnerable witnesses are examined. A criminal trial must protect the accused's right to a fair defence. At the same time, fairness cannot mean permitting questions that are irrelevant, degrading or intended solely to intimidate the complainant. The role of the judge is consequently not passive. The court must intervene when questioning crosses the boundary between testing evidence and attacking the dignity of the witness. The concern becomes even greater where the witness is a child. Recognising the need for a broader institutional response, the High Court directed that the judgment be forwarded to the Delhi Judicial Academy and recommended sensitisation of judicial officers. The Case Fits into a Larger Judicial Development. The Delhi High Court's observations are not entirely new in principle. Indian courts have repeatedly struggled with the influence of gender stereotypes on the administration of criminal justice.
In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Supreme Court had cautioned trial courts against allowing sexual-offence proceedings to become unnecessarily humiliating for survivors. In the case of Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 2 SCC 532, the Supreme court gave a categorical judicial stereotyping in the country. The decision emphasised the need for sensitivity while recording and evaluating the testimony of victims of sexual violence. Despite these principles, controversial judicial observations have continued to appear.
In 2022, a Kerala trial court faced widespread criticism after comments concerning a survivor's clothing in the case of Civic Chandran V. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (ker)522 were interpreted as questioning the effect of her attire on the allegation of sexual assault. The Bombay High Court's 2021 in Attorney General for India V. Satish & Anr. 2022 5 SCC 1 decision concerning sexual assault involving physical contact through clothing generated another major controversy where the Supreme Court rejected the restrictive “skin-to-skin contact” interpretation of Section 7 of POCSO. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside that interpretation. In 2023, observations made by the Calcutta High Court concerning adolescent girls and sexual behaviour also came under scrutiny, with the Supreme Court expressing strong disapproval of those remarks. The proceedings arising from the Tejpal case, State of Goa V. Tarun Tejpal similarly attracted attention because considerable focus was placed on the complainant's personal communications, relationships and conduct where on August 6, 2026 the court has sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Taken together, these episodes demonstrate that gender stereotypes can influence the framing of legal questions even when the law itself does not recognise such stereotypes as evidence.
Why the Delhi High Court's Approach Is Significant
The judgment has implications beyond the individual prosecution.
It provides a clear reminder to trial courts that:
1. A complainant's clothing cannot be treated as proof of consent or sexual character;
2. Personal religious or family circumstances do not become relevant merely because they can be questioned
3. Cross-examination must serve a legitimate evidentiary purpose;
4. Judicial officers must prevent irrelevant and humiliating questioning; and
5. Vulnerable witnesses require particular judicial care during proceedings.
The Larger Principle
The Court's recommendation for judicial sensitisation is also significant. Changing courtroom culture requires more than identifying problematic reasoning after a case has been decided. Judges and lawyers must understand, during the proceedings themselves, when questioning has ceased to serve a legitimate forensic purpose. At its core, the judgment reinforces a simple proposition: a sexual-offence trial should examine the allegation and the evidence surrounding it, not attempt to determine whether the complainant behaved according to society's expectations. A person's clothes do not determine whether another person is entitled to harass or assault them. Nor should clothing, religion, family circumstances or lifestyle be used as indirect substitutes for evidence about the alleged offence. The justice system's task is to determine criminal liability on the basis of legally relevant material. Once irrelevant judgments about a survivor's appearance or personal choices enter that process, the focus moves away from adjudication and towards character judgment. The Delhi High Court's intervention is therefore important not because it creates an entirely new legal principle, but because it reinforces an existing one that must be consistently applied: the credibility of a survivor must be assessed through evidence, not stereotypes.
Views are personal.