Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Aug 10: The Delhi High Court has held that what a woman chooses to wear is a matter of personal choice and cannot be dictated by society, neighbours, an accused person or even lawyers appearing before a court.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observation while allowing an appeal against the acquittal of a man accused of sexually harassing a young woman and convicting him under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC.

The court took strong exception to the defence attempting to link the woman’s clothing, including her wearing jeans, with the alleged offence.

“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,” Justice Sudha observed.

The case involved Sajid Ali, who was accused of repeatedly stalking the woman, making sexually coloured remarks and touching her cheeks and hip.

During the trial, the defence questioned the woman about her clothes and objections allegedly raised by residents of the locality over her wearing western attire. She had said that she generally wore “normal jeans and top” and acknowledged that some local residents had objected to her clothing.

Justice Sudha termed the line of questioning on the woman’s clothes “wholly irrelevant” and “improper”, observing that it appeared intended to embarrass, humiliate and morally judge the prosecutrix.

“A woman’s choice of attire neither diminishes her dignity nor serves as justification or condonation for unlawful conduct directed against her,” the court said.

The judge further said that questions based on “regressive notions of how a woman ought to dress” have no place in a court of law and cannot be used for character assassination or victim-blaming.

The High Court also rejected the argument that the woman wearing jeans could “corrupt young boys”, saying the solution was not to control the clothes worn by 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 said.

The court also criticised attempts to bring religion and local customs into the proceedings.

When asked why questions about the religion of people in the locality and the woman’s clothing were put to her, the defence counsel had argued that every locality has its own customs and traditions which everyone must follow.

Justice Sudha rejected the submission as “wholly unacceptable”, holding that the woman’s religion, the religion of local residents and her clothing had no connection with the issue before the court.

“Neither religion nor local custom can be used to justify unlawful conduct or to impose restrictions upon the personal choices of a woman,” the court said.

The High Court also referred to a complaint allegedly submitted by the accused and local residents against the woman. The complaint reportedly described her living with her mother without any male member in the family, wearing “objectionable dress” and allegedly corrupting young boys by wearing such clothes.

“I am totally at a loss and unable to find any provision(s) in any law/statute/rule book prevailing in the country that has been violated/breached by PW4 that necessitated the police to take action by registering a crime and launching an investigation into the same,” Justice Sudha observed.

The court said the principal grievance of the accused and local residents appeared to be the woman’s clothing and held that her attire could not be a ground to disbelieve her testimony.

It further stressed that even if a woman is portrayed as being of “easy virtue”, she would still be entitled to privacy and the protection of law.

“Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy, and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes,” the judge said.

The court found the woman’s testimony consistent regarding the accused’s unwanted physical contact and stalking. It held that touching her cheeks, coupled with the comments made by the accused, constituted an offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC.

The court accordingly found Sajid Ali guilty of sexual harassment and convicted him under the provision.

Justice Sudha also cautioned judicial officers that cross-examination cannot become a licence to insult, shame, intimidate or harass a witness.

“The Court cannot remain a silent spectator while the dignity of a witness is attacked under the guise of cross-examination,” the judgment said.

The judge directed that questions concerning a woman’s clothing, character, lifestyle, religion or personal choices should not be permitted unless they are strictly relevant to an issue arising in the case.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi for circulation among judicial officers. It was also directed to be sent to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy, for appropriate training and sensitisation programmes.

Sajid Ali has been directed to appear before the Delhi High Court on Wednesday for hearing on sentence.