Indian judge acquits film director of rape after saying 'a feeble no could mean yes'

Likely Farooqui had 'no idea' his alleged victim did not want to have sex with him, court finds

Farooqui is the co-director of the 2010 Bolywood hit Peepli Live. (Getty)

A Delhi high court judge has acquitted a prominent Indian film director of rape, saying that a "feeble no" could amount to consent.

Mahmood Farooqui​, who co-directed 2010 Bollywood film Peepli Live, was last year convicted of raping a Columbia University postgraduate student and sentenced to seven years in prison.

The woman said said she said no repeatedly, but Farooqui forced himself on her and restrained her arms when she tried to stop him undressing her.

Yet, quashing the conviction, Justice Ashutosh Kumar said it was likely Farooqui had "no idea" the alleged victim did not want to have sex with him.

“Instances of woman behaviour are not unknown that a feeble ‘no’ may mean a ‘yes’," he said in a ruling on Monday.

"If the parties are strangers, the same theory may not be applied…. But same would not be the situation when parties are known to each other, are persons of letters and are intellectually/academically proficient, and if, in the past, there have been physical contacts.

"In such cases, it would be really difficult to decipher whether little or no resistance and a feeble ‘no,’ was actually a denial of consent.”

The judge said it was unclear whether Farooqi knew the alleged victim did not consent, saying "under such circumstances, benefit of the doubt is necessarily given to the appellant."

The alleged victim said she stopped resisting out of fear Farooqui could kill her and said he only released her when she feigned an orgasm to persuade him to stop.

The case has revived debate around consent in India, with women's rights campaigners saying the judge's comments distort the definition of consent.

The Indian Penal Code gives a clear definition of consent, which encompasses both verbal and non-verbal communication.

“I am deeply concerned with the language. It is an absolutely incorrect interpretation of consent, which has statutorily been defined already,” lawyer Rebecca John told the Times of India. “The language used is neither legal, nor factual. This is the same misogynistic response we have fought for years.”

India has struggled with high levels of sexual violence and widespread harassment. Courts in the country have interpreted consent loosely, with lawyers arguing women who wear provocative clothing or do not fight back strongly enough against an attacker are implicitly agreeing to sex.