This section means judges can block any question they personally find awkward or uncomfortable.

The question must be genuinely indecent or scandalous AND unnecessary to the facts in issue — judges cannot block relevant questions just because they're uncomfortable.

This provision only applies to sexual offence cases.

The text is general and can apply to any case where a question is indecent, scandalous, and irrelevant to the facts genuinely in dispute, though it is most often invoked to protect witnesses in cases involving personal or sexual matters.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 154

Indecent and scandalous questions

The Court may forbid any questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.§

Why this exists

This rule comes from the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 151, and related Section 152 on insulting/annoying questions), carried forward into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 with the same substance. Courts in adversarial trials, especially cross-examination, can be misused to humiliate or shame witnesses (particularly in cases involving sexual assault, personal relationships, or character attacks) rather than to genuinely test the truth of facts in issue. The provision balances a lawyer's right to ask probing questions with a witness's dignity, giving judges discretion to cut off questioning that serves only to embarrass rather than to establish truth.

How courts read it

Indian courts have historically used this provision (and its predecessor under the Evidence Act) to protect witnesses—especially survivors in sexual offence cases—from character-assassination style cross-examination about their past sexual history or personal conduct, unless directly relevant to a fact in issue. Judgments in rape and sexual harassment trials have repeatedly held that questions about a victim's general 'immoral character' or unrelated past relationships are scandalous and inadmissible under this kind of provision, reinforcing that relevance to the actual charge, not mere curiosity or bias, is the test.

Common misconceptions

Myth: This section means judges can block any question they personally find awkward or uncomfortable.
Fact: The question must be genuinely indecent or scandalous AND unnecessary to the facts in issue — judges cannot block relevant questions just because they're uncomfortable.
Myth: This provision only applies to sexual offence cases.
Fact: The text is general and can apply to any case where a question is indecent, scandalous, and irrelevant to the facts genuinely in dispute, though it is most often invoked to protect witnesses in cases involving personal or sexual matters.