Religion Or Custom Cannot Restrict Woman’s Choices & Justify Harassment: Delhi High Court Rejects Accused's "Western Tight Clothes" Defence In Sexual Harassment Case
|The suggestion that women wearing jeans may ‘corrupt young boys’ reflects a deeply troubling mindset. The answer lies not in controlling women’s clothing, but in teaching children to respect boundaries and treat everyone with dignity, the Bench said.
Overturning a 2014 acquittal order, the Delhi High Court has convicted a man under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC for sexually harassing a 17-year-old girl in 2013. Pertinently, during cross-examination, counsel for the accused argued that residents in the orthodox locality objected to the victim wearing "western tight clothes" and jeans. The Court rejected this submission entirely, clarifying that neither local customs nor attire can justify harassment or serve as a defense in law.
In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, the High Court strongly deprecated the defense strategy of blaming and shaming the survivor based on her attire and neighborhood religious norms, holding that a woman’s personal choice of clothing can never justify unlawful conduct or diminish her right to dignity.
The Bench observed that “…The Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and all other laws of the land apply alike to every person, irrespective of religion. Neither religion nor local custom can be used to justify unlawful conduct or to impose restrictions upon the personal choices of a woman. The attempt to bring the religion and attire of PW4 into the case was entirely irrelevant and improper”, the Bench noted.
“…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. 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. The line of cross examination adopted before the trial court, and the argument advanced in its support, deserve the strongest disapproval…”, the Bench further said.
Utkarsh, APP for State appeared for the appellant Advocates Mohd. Iqbal and Kanwar Faisal appeared for the respondent.
The case originated from a 2013 incident where the accused, Sajid Ali, sexually harassed a 17-year-old girl by making unwanted physical contact and sexually colored remarks. Although the trial court acquitted him in 2014, the Delhi High Court overturned the decision, finding the survivor’s testimony consistent and credible.
The High Court set aside the August 22, 2014 acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, finding that the survivor (PW4) remained consistent across her initial statement, Section 164 CrPC statement, and court testimony regarding the unwanted physical contact and sexually colored remarks.
In the matter, while the prosecution invoked Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the Court held that POCSO could not be applied due to evidentiary flaws in proving minority. The birth certificate (Ext. PW5/A) was registered 13 years after birth without supporting SDM orders or matching municipal birth register entries.
The Court issued strong directions to the District Judiciary, reminding presiding judges that they must actively intervene under Sections 151 and 152 of the Evidence Act to prevent defense counsel from using cross-examination to insult, shame, or humiliate witnesses.
“…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. I am not unmindful of the considerable pressures under which officers of the district judiciary discharge their duties. Nevertheless, the presiding judge is not a passive spectator to the proceedings. 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)”.
Cause Title: State (NCT Of Delhi) v. Sajid Ali (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6421)
Appearances:
Appellant: Utkarsh, APP for State.
Respondent: Mohd. Iqbal and Kanwar Faisal, Advocates.