Delhi High Court Rebukes Victim-Blaming in Sexual Harassment Case: Woman’s Clothing Is Her Personal Choice

The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised attempts to link a woman’s clothing, lifestyle, religion or personal choices with allegations of sexual harassment, observing that what a woman chooses to wear is entirely her own decision and cannot be used to justify misconduct against her.

 

Justice Sudha Chandrasekharan, while dealing with a sexual harassment case, noted that any suggestion that wearing jeans or western-style clothes could “corrupt young boys” reflects a deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset. The Court emphasised that neither neighbours, society, an accused person nor lawyers appearing in court have any right to dictate a woman’s clothing choices.

 

The case involved allegations by a woman against her neighbour, whom she accused of stalking her, making sexually coloured remarks and touching her inappropriately. The accused had been acquitted by a trial court, following which the State challenged the acquittal before the High Court.

 

During the proceedings, the High Court took serious objection to the line of cross-examination adopted before the trial court. Questions had been asked about the woman’s western-style dressing, her religion, the religious background of residents in the locality and objections allegedly raised to her clothes. The Court described such questioning as irrelevant and improper, observing that it should have been stopped at the trial stage.

 

The defence had also referred to a complaint reportedly made by local residents alleging that the woman indulged in immoral activities and wore clothes that adversely affected boys in the neighbourhood. Rejecting this approach, the High Court held that neither religion nor local customs can be used as a justification for unlawful conduct or for imposing restrictions on a woman’s personal choices.

 

The Court further observed that questions concerning a woman’s clothing, character, lifestyle, religion or other personal choices should not be permitted unless they are strictly relevant to the issues involved in the case. Trial courts, it said, must remain vigilant against questioning that reinforces stereotypes, humiliates victims or shifts attention away from the conduct of the accused.

 

In a significant observation, the Court rejected the suggestion that a woman could be labelled as “unchaste” or “of easy virtue” on the basis of her clothing or lifestyle. It underlined that every woman is entitled to privacy, personal autonomy, bodily integrity and the protection of law, irrespective of how she chooses to dress or conduct her personal life.

 

The High Court also noted that the answer to sexual harassment does not lie in controlling the clothing of girls and women. Instead, families and society must teach children to respect personal boundaries, dignity and the autonomy of every individual.

 

On the issue of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the Court observed that such provisions could not be invoked where the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily establish that the complainant was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.