Delhi Court Acquits Women In Obscenity Case As Clothing Choice Not A Crime, Public Annoyance Key
- A Delhi court acquitted seven women accused of obscene dancing, stating attire alone doesn’t constitute a crime.
- Charges dismissed due to lack of public annoyance evidence and unreliable prosecution claims. Explore the verdict’s details.
In a significant ruling, a Delhi court acquitted seven women accused of performing an "obscene dance" at a bar in 2023, asserting that wearing revealing clothing in public does not inherently constitute a crime. The verdict, delivered on February 4, emphasized that legal action under obscenity laws requires proof of public annoyance, which the prosecution failed to establish.
Case Background
The women were charged under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes obscene acts or songs in public spaces. The case stemmed from a complaint by Sub-Inspector Dharmender of Paharganj police, who claimed the women danced to "obscene songs" in "short clothes" during a patrol.
Court’s Reasoning on Attire and Obscenity
The court rejected the notion that clothing choices alone could be deemed criminal, stating, *“Wearing small clothes is not an offense unless it causes annoyance to others.”* It stressed that the prosecution did not present any witnesses who were disturbed by the alleged act. Two witnesses testified they visited the bar for entertainment and had no grievances.
Prosecution’s Case Crumbles
The judgment highlighted glaring gaps in the police’s claims:
1. No Proof of Patrol Duty: The officer failed to submit duty rosters or documents confirming his presence at the bar during the stated time.
2. Unreliable Testimony: The court dismissed police witnesses as “unreliable,” accusing them of presenting a “concocted story” without corroborative evidence.
3. Absence of Public Complaints: No independent witnesses or public members reported annoyance, a critical element for invoking Section 294 IPC.
Verdict’s Broader Implications
The court underscored the necessity of tangible evidence over moral policing, stating oral claims by officials hold no weight without documentation. The ruling reinforces legal safeguards against arbitrary misuse of obscenity laws, prioritizing individual freedoms unless public order is demonstrably harmed.
This decision, widely reported by *Bar and Bench*, marks a pushback against subjective enforcement of morality laws, spotlighting the judiciary’s role in balancing societal norms with constitutional rights.
