Idea that a woman in jeans can 'corrupt young boys' shows troubling mindset: HC

In her 50-page verdict, the bench said what a girl or woman chooses to wear is entirely a matter of personal choice

The Delhi high court on Monday observed that a woman’s choice of attire cannot be invoked during cross-examination to question her character or shift blame onto her.

The solution, it stressed, does not lie in controlling the clothes worn by girls and women. Instead, parents and society must teach children to regulate their own conduct, the court said. (Representative Image)

A bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha emphasised that her clothing neither diminishes her dignity nor provides any justification or excuse for unlawful conduct directed against her.

“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.

In her 50-page verdict, the bench said what a girl or woman chooses to wear is entirely a matter of personal choice and suggesting that a woman wearing jeans could “corrupt young boys” reflects a deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset.

It added, “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 court passed the order in an appeal against the trial court’s August 2014 verdict acquitting a man under section 354A of the Indian Penal Code and section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The appeal stemmed from a July 2013 incident in which the man allegedly made sexually coloured remarks to a 17-year-old girl and committed aggravated sexual assault by touching her cheek and hip.

Before the trial court, he claimed that local residents, whom he described as orthodox, objected to the girl’s clothing and had even complained to the police—a complaint he had signed. He further alleged that, after learning of the complaint, the girl, with the help of a police sub-inspector with whom she was allegedly in a relationship, falsely implicated him due to his criminal antecedents.

The court made these observations after noting that the primary grievance of the man and local residents appeared to be the victim’s “dress,” which was also evident from the defence counsel’s cross-examination and arguments, which focused on whether residents of the “Muslim area” were orthodox and had objected to her wearing Western clothes.

The counsel also questioned the victim about what she was wearing when she visited the doctor and suggested that she generally wore “western tight clothes.”

In her verdict the court set aside the acquittal and strongly criticised the line of questioning, calling it “wholly irrelevant” and improper. She observed that the questions appeared aimed at embarrassing, humiliating and morally judging the prosecutrix based on her clothing, and said they should have been disallowed by the trial judge at the outset.

“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,” the judge said.

She further said there was “no reason whatsoever” to bring religion into the case, emphasising that the Indian Penal Code, the POCSO Act and all other laws apply equally 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,” she added.

In her judgment, the court emphasised that judicial officers must ensure that court proceedings do not become a second source of trauma for victims or witnesses, saying 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.

“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.