The Delhi High Court on Monday, 10 August overturned a trial court's acquittal and convicted Sajid Ali of sexual harassment, firmly ruling that a woman's choice of attire — including wearing jeans — is a matter of personal freedom that no individual, neighbour, or community has the right to question. The judgment, delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, carries implications well beyond the case itself, directly addressing regressive courtroom practices and the misuse of cross-examination to shame complainants.

What the Case Was About

The complainant, a young woman, had accused Sajid Ali of repeatedly stalking her, making sexually coloured remarks, and physically touching her cheeks and hip without consent. The trial court had acquitted him, prompting the woman to appeal before the Delhi High Court.

During the original trial, the defence had questioned the woman about her clothing and referenced objections raised by residents of the locality over her wearing western attire. The woman stated she typically wore 'normal jeans and top' and acknowledged that local residents had objected to her dress.

What Justice Sudha Ruled

Justice Sudha found the woman's testimony consistent and credible regarding the accused's unwanted physical contact and stalking. The court held that the touching of her cheeks, combined with the sexually coloured remarks, constituted an offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and convicted Sajid Ali accordingly. He has been directed to appear before the court on Wednesday for the sentencing hearing.

On the line of cross-examination targeting the woman's clothes, Justice Sudha was categorical: '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 court described this line of questioning as 'wholly irrelevant, improper' and a technique to embarrass, humiliate, and morally judge the complainant. 'A woman's choice of attire neither diminishes her dignity nor serves as justification or condonation for unlawful conduct directed against her,' the judgment stated.

Religion and Local Custom Rejected as Defence

The defence counsel had submitted — in Hindi — that every locality has its own traditions and customs which everyone must comply with, appearing to suggest that the woman's clothing violated local norms. Justice Sudha rejected this submission as 'wholly unacceptable', ruling that '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 also noted a complaint allegedly submitted by the accused and local residents against the woman, which cited her living with her mother without a male family member, wearing 'objectionable dress', and allegedly corrupting young boys. Justice Sudha observed that she was 'totally at a loss' to identify any law, statute, or rule that the woman had violated that would have warranted police action.

Court's Message to Parents and Society

The judgment also rejected the argument that a woman's choice of clothing could 'corrupt young boys', stating that the answer lay not in controlling women's attire but in education. '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 said.

Notably, Justice Sudha added that even a woman characterised as being of 'easy virtue' — as the defence had sought to portray the complainant — remains entitled to privacy and the full protection of the law. 'Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy, and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes,' the judgment read.

Directions to Judiciary Across Delhi

In a significant institutional move, Justice Sudha 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,' she said.

The court directed that questions based on a woman's clothing, character, lifestyle, religion, or personal choices — unless strictly relevant to an issue in the case — must not be permitted. A copy of the judgment has been ordered to be forwarded to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi for circulation among judicial officers, and to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy, for use in training and sensitisation programmes. The ruling sets a clear precedent for how sexual harassment cases must be conducted in courtrooms across the capital.