'Jeans Cannot Corrupt Young Boys': Delhi HC Slams Clothing-Based Victim Blaming

Delhi HC has ruled that a woman’s choice of clothing cannot be used to justify sexual harassment or invade her privacy. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha criticised arguments targeting a 17-year-old victim’s clothes, character and religion, calling such views deeply troubling. The court also warned lawyers against humiliating sexual offence victims.

The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised attempts to blame a woman's clothing for sexual harassment, ruling that what a woman chooses to wear can never justify unlawful conduct against her. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observations while convicting a man identified as Sajid in a case involving the sexual harassment of a 17-year-old girl. The court also criticised the manner in which the victim was questioned during the trial. The case dates back to 2013, when Sajid allegedly stalked and repeatedly accosted the teenager, made sexually coloured remarks and touched her inappropriately.

Court questions clothing-based allegations

The court took particular exception to complaints made against the girl and her mother by the accused and around 50 local residents, reported Bar and Bench. Among the allegations was that the two women were living without a male member, wearing Western clothes, having questionable character and allegedly “corrupting” young boys in the locality.

Justice Sudha said she was at a “loss of words” on seeing such allegations being treated as complaints requiring consideration.

The court said a woman’s clothes are a matter of personal choice and cannot be dictated by neighbours, society, an accused person or lawyers in court.

It also rejected the suggestion that wearing jeans could “corrupt young boys”, saying the responsibility instead lies with parents and society to teach children to respect personal boundaries and treat others with dignity.

‘Even a woman of easy virtue has rights’

The court also rejected the notion that a woman’s alleged character could give anyone the right to harass or assault her.

Justice Sudha stressed that even a woman described as being of “easy virtue” remains entitled to privacy and legal protection. Her clothing or perceived character cannot be treated as permission for anyone to violate her personal space.

The court further criticised the defence lawyer’s cross-examination of the teenager, saying questions about her clothing appeared designed to humiliate and morally judge her.

It said questions based on outdated ideas about how women should dress have no legitimate place in a courtroom and cannot be used to attack a victim’s character.

Court criticises bringing religion into case

The High Court also objected to references to the victim’s religion and the religion of residents in the locality during questioning.

It said neither religion, local customs nor clothing had any connection with the allegations of sexual harassment and should not be used to impose restrictions on a woman’s personal choices.

The court warned that cross-examination cannot become a tool to intimidate, insult, shame or harass a witness.

It also said judges must intervene when questioning crosses the limits of relevance and propriety, particularly when the witness is a child or a victim of sexual crime.

Sajid convicted, sentencing on August 12

Sajid had earlier been acquitted by a trial court in 2014 after discrepancies were noted in the prosecution's case. The Delhi government challenged the acquittal before the High Court.

The High Court has now convicted Sajid on merits and said it will decide his sentence on August 12.

The court also directed that the judgment be circulated to the Delhi Judicial Academy for training and sensitisation programmes for judicial officers.

The judgment serves as a strong reminder that a victim’s clothing, lifestyle, religion or personal choices cannot be used to shift responsibility for sexual misconduct or turn a courtroom into another source of trauma.
Tiruchendur Crash: Speeding Car Hits Van While Fleeing After Hitting Bike, One Dead; Horrific Video Surfaces