
The Delhi high court has convicted a man for sexually harassing a 17-year-old girl in 2013, overturning a trial court's acquittal. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha strongly criticised the defence's line of questioning, which…
The Delhi high court has convicted a man for sexually harassing a 17-year-old girl in 2013, overturning a trial court's acquittal. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha strongly criticised the defence's line of questioning, which focused on the girl's 'western' clothes and the religion of local residents. The court said a woman's choice of attire is her personal matter and that suggesting jeans could 'corrupt young boys' reflects a 'deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset'. It ruled that the answer does not lie in controlling what women wear but in teaching children to regulate their own conduct. The court, however, did not apply the POCSO Act as the prosecution failed to prove the girl was a minor.


The reaction to this judgment will predictably split into two tired camps: one cheering the court's progressive stance on women's clothing, the other muttering about the 'victimisation' of the accused. Both miss the point. The real issue is the trial court's failure to stop a defence lawyer from grilling a minor about her jeans and her Muslim neighbours. The Delhi HC has correctly flagged that such cross-examination is not clever advocacy but an abuse of process. The test for lower courts now is simple: will they finally disallow irrelevant and humiliating questions about a woman's attire at the outset, or will victims have to wait for an expensive appeal?
Sources (3): hindustantimes.com, timesofindia.indiatimes.com, rediff.com
This story was synthesised by AI from the 3 sources linked above.
Updated: this story now draws on 3 sources.