'Woman Wearing Jeans Is A Personal Choice': Delhi High Court Criticizes Advocate's Questions On Victim's Clothing In Sexual Harassment Case
The Delhi High Court has criticized the line of cross-examination adopted by a defence counsel in a sexual harassment case, observing that questions directed at the survivor's clothing were "wholly irrelevant" and appeared intended to embarrass, humiliate and morally judge her. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha remarked that a woman's choice to wear jeans is a matter of personal choice and no one...
The Delhi High Court has criticized the line of cross-examination adopted by a defence counsel in a sexual harassment case, observing that questions directed at the survivor's clothing were "wholly irrelevant" and appeared intended to embarrass, humiliate and morally judge her.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha remarked that a woman's choice to wear jeans is a matter of personal choice and no one has the right to dictate her clothing.
Setting aside the accused's acquittal and convicting him under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the judge also observed that the trial court ought to have disallowed such questioning at the very outset.
“What a girl or woman chooses to wear is a matter of her personal choice. Neither her neighbours, nor society, nor the accused, nor counsel appearing in a court of law has any right to dictate her clothing,” the Court said.
“It is simply none of their concern. The suggestion that a woman wearing jeans may “corrupt young boys” reflects a deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset. The answer does not lie in controlling the clothes of girls and women. Parents and society must instead teach their children to control their conduct, respect personal boundaries and treat every human with dignity, whether at home or outside,” it added.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Police against the judgment of the trial court of 2014 acquitting the accused for the offences under Section 354A of IPC and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
The prosecution case was that the accused had repeatedly stalked the prosecutrix and made sexually coloured remarks against her. On July 17, 2013, he allegedly approached her while she was returning home and touched her cheeks. When she objected, he allegedly threatened her.
In POCSO offence, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily establish the age or minority of the prosecutrix and thus, the provisions of the PoCSO Act could not be invoked in the case.
Regarding other charge, the Court noted that the main grievance of the accused and the residents of the locality was the dress of the victim, which was clear from the line of cross-examination and arguments of the counsel for the accused.
The Court observed that the line of cross-examination pursued by the lawyer was wholly irrelevant, improper and a “technique to embarrass, humiliate and morally judge the prosecutrix based on her clothing.” It said that such approach ought to have been disallowed at the very outset by the Trial Judge.
“A woman's choice of attire neither diminishes her dignity nor serves as justification or condonation for unlawful conduct directed against her. Questions founded upon regressive notions of how a woman ought to dress have no legitimate place in a court of law and cannot be permitted to become a device for character assassination or for blaming the prosecutrix,” the Court said.
Justice Sudha said that she was not unmindful of the considerable pressures under which officers of the district judiciary discharge their duties but the presiding judge is not a passive spectator to the proceedings.
The Court said that whenever cross- examination transgresses the bounds of relevance and propriety, or is employed as a means to intimidate, insult, harass or shame a witness, the Court must intervene promptly and decisively.
“The process of cross-examination cannot be reduced to an instrument of humiliation, nor can the dignity of a witness be sacrificed under the guise of testing her credibility (See Sections 146 to 152 of the Evidence Act),” it said.
Further, the Court observed that an advocate cannot use the privilege of cross- examination as a licence to humiliate a witness or attack victim's dignity. It added that even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes.
“So also, it is not open to any and every person to violate her person as and when he wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of law,” the Court said.
Convicting the man under Section 354A (1)(i) of IPC, the Court gave a word of caution to all judicial officers of the District Judiciary. It said that cross- examination is a valuable right, but it is not an unrestricted licence to insult, shame, intimidate or harass a witness.
Justice Sudha said that the Court cannot remain a silent spectator while the dignity of a witness is attacked under the guise of cross-examination.
“Judicial officers must ensure that court proceedings do not become a second site of trauma for the injured or witness. Questions based on a woman's clothing, character, lifestyle, religion or personal choices, unless strictly relevant to an issue arising in the case, must not be permitted. The right of an accused to a fair trial must be fully protected, but it cannot be allowed to become a means of subjecting a witness to indignity or character assassination,” the Court said.
It ordered: “A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi for circulation amongst the judicial officers under their respective jurisdictions. A copy shall also be sent to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy, with a direction that the concerns expressed in this judgment be brought to the notice of judicial officers through appropriate training and sensitization programmes.”
Title: STATE v. SAJID ALI