New Delhi, Aug 2026 : The Delhi High Court has delivered a strong message on women’s dignity and personal autonomy, observing that what a woman chooses to wear is entirely her personal decision and cannot be dictated by society, neighbours, accused persons or even lawyers appearing before a court.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observations while allowing an appeal against the acquittal of Sajid Ali in a sexual harassment case and convicting him under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the woman’s testimony regarding unwanted physical contact, stalking and sexually coloured remarks was consistent and sufficient to establish the offence.
The judgment came down particularly hard on the defence’s attempt to connect the woman’s clothing, including her wearing jeans and a top, with the alleged misconduct. The court held that such questioning was irrelevant and improper and appeared designed to embarrass, humiliate and morally judge the complainant.
Justice Sudha said a woman’s choice of attire neither diminishes her dignity nor provides justification or acceptance for unlawful behaviour directed against her. She made it clear that neither society nor individuals have any authority to impose restrictions on a woman’s clothing based on their own notions of morality or acceptable behaviour.
The case concerned allegations that Sajid Ali repeatedly stalked the young woman, made sexually coloured comments and touched her cheeks and hip. During the trial, the defence questioned the woman about the clothes she wore and referred to objections allegedly raised by residents of her locality because she wore western clothes.
The woman had told the court that she generally wore “normal jeans and top”. She also acknowledged that some residents had objected to her attire. However, the High Court held that these details had no bearing on whether she had been subjected to sexual harassment.
Justice Sudha described the line of questioning relating to the woman’s clothes as “wholly irrelevant” and “improper”. The court said such questions appeared to be an attempt to shame the prosecutrix rather than establish facts relevant to the alleged offence.
The judgment stressed that regressive ideas about how women should dress have no place in judicial proceedings. Questions based on such notions cannot be permitted to become a means of character assassination or victim-blaming.
The court also rejected the argument that women wearing jeans or western clothing could “corrupt young boys”. Justice Sudha observed that the responsibility of parents and society was not to control the clothes worn by girls and women but to teach children appropriate behaviour, respect for personal boundaries and dignity for every individual.
The court was equally critical of attempts to introduce religion and local customs into the proceedings. During cross-examination, the defence had sought to justify questions about the woman’s clothing and the religious composition of the locality by arguing that every neighbourhood had its own traditions and customs that residents were expected to follow.
Justice Sudha rejected the argument as wholly unacceptable. She held that the woman’s religion, the religion of local residents and her choice of clothing had no connection with the criminal allegations being examined by the court.
The judgment categorically stated that neither religion nor local customs can be invoked to justify unlawful conduct or impose restrictions on a woman’s personal choices. The court further examined a complaint allegedly submitted by the accused and local residents against the woman.
According to the judgment, the alleged grievances included the fact that the woman lived with her mother without a male member in the family, wore what the complainants described as “objectionable dress” and was allegedly influencing or corrupting young boys through her clothing.
Justice Sudha questioned the legal basis for treating any of these circumstances as wrongdoing. She observed that she could find no provision in any applicable law, statute or rule that the woman had violated merely by living with her mother or choosing particular clothes.
The High Court concluded that the principal grievance of the accused and some residents appeared to be the woman’s clothing rather than any legitimate legal issue. It therefore held that her attire could not be used as a reason to disbelieve her testimony.
The court went further, stressing that a woman’s right to privacy and protection under law does not disappear because of judgments about her character or lifestyle. Even if a woman is sought to be portrayed as being of “easy virtue”, the court said, she remains entitled to privacy and legal protection.
Justice Sudha stated that no person can invade a woman’s privacy merely because of assumptions about her character. The observation reinforced the principle that a person’s perceived morality, clothing or lifestyle cannot provide a defence for unlawful conduct.
After examining the evidence, the High Court found the woman’s account regarding the accused’s conduct to be consistent. The court held that the touching of her cheeks, coupled with the sexually coloured comments, amounted to sexual harassment under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC.
The court accordingly overturned the acquittal and convicted Sajid Ali under the relevant provision. He has been directed to appear before the High Court on Wednesday for a hearing on the question of sentence.
The judgment also issued an important caution to judicial officers regarding the limits of cross-examination. Justice Sudha emphasised that cross-examination is an essential part of a fair trial but cannot become a licence to insult, shame, intimidate or harass a witness.
The court said judges cannot remain silent spectators when the dignity of a witness is attacked under the guise of questioning. It 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.
To ensure wider awareness of these principles, the High Court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi. It also ordered that the judgment be sent to the Director (Academics) of the Delhi Judicial Academy for appropriate training and sensitisation programmes.
The ruling therefore goes beyond the individual case, setting out a broader judicial principle: a woman’s clothes, personal choices or social circumstances cannot be used to excuse, minimise or justify sexual harassment. The court’s observations underline that responsibility for unlawful conduct rests with the person committing it, not with the woman subjected to it.
(The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)
