The notion that clothes make the man remains debatable; when applied to women in India, it has also enabled a strong form of morality policing. It is this bias that the Delhi High Court recently addressed when it ruled that a woman’s attire cannot be used to judge her character or justify sexual offences against her. The verdict affirms that courts, while hearing cases involving sexual offences, must rely solely on evidence without enforcing interpreted morality. This ruling came on a sexual harassment case involving a minor, where the court rejected the premise that girls wearing jeans could “corrupt” boys. The High Court overturned a trial court’s acquittal of the accused in 2014, affirming that touching of the complainant’s cheeks and inappropriate comments constituted an offence. Charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act were dropped because the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the survivor’s age.
Judge Chandrasekharan Sudha made it clear that what a woman wears is her choice and no one else has the right to dictate that choice. The argument about clothing shifts responsibility for the offence from the accused to the victim and suggests that women have a price to pay for their choices. This prejudicial line of reasoning has persisted in society and, sometimes, even influenced judicial thinking. The court sent out a message when it told judicial officers that cross-examination should not be used to “insult, shame, intimidate or harass”.
Courts in the country have affirmed these principles in the past as well. The Supreme Court held that even a woman of “doubtful reputation” is entitled to privacy, dignity, and protection by the law. Clothes and appearances have been repeatedly used against women as triggers for sexual violence, and have influenced the outcome of some of these cases. The Bombay High Court, in its recent ruling in the Tarun Tejpal case, held that a survivor’s conduct and personality should not be scrutinised as evidence while judging a crime. Courts should look at the facts of the case and adjudicate it based on the evidence, and refrain from moralising. The principle holds outside the courtrooms, too. The “corruption” is not in the clothes women wear; it is in the eyes that see them. The Delhi High Court’s ruling sets an important precedent for sexual offence cases. A victim’s clothing choices cannot be linked to the criminality of the act; they cannot be used to evade accountability or reduce the severity of the crime. (Source: DH)