On Tuesday, August 20, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the suo motu case titled “In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents,” initiated in response to controversial remarks made by the Calcutta High Court in a judgment delivered on October 18, 2023.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the High Court’s judgment, which included controversial statements suggesting that adolescent girls should control their sexual urges. The High Court had acquitted a 20-year-old man who engaged in sexual activity with a minor girl.
Justice Oka, who pronounced the verdict, announced that guidelines have been issued regarding the writing of judgments. He also stated that the conviction of the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC has been restored.
Additionally, Justice Oka mentioned that directions have been issued to the States to implement provisions of Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, along with Sections 30 to 43 of the Juvenile Justice Act. A committee of experts has also been constituted to assist the victim in making informed decisions.
The detailed judgment will be available once the copy is uploaded.
The Calcutta High Court, in its impugned judgment, had overturned the conviction of a 25-year-old man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The High Court made sweeping observations on adolescent sexual behavior, particularly regarding teenage girls, and suggested a set of duties for adolescent boys and girls.
The High Court’s remarks led the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance, labeling the observations as “highly objectionable” and “completely unwarranted,” as they violated the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court expressed concern over the High Court’s deviation from its duty to decide the case based solely on the appeal’s merits, criticizing the judges for expressing personal views and moralizing.
During the hearings, the Supreme Court disapproved of the general trend in various courts of “victim-shaming” and “stereotyping” victims of sexual assault, emphasizing that such judgments are entirely inappropriate. The Court underscored that individual rights should not be contingent upon fulfilling socially defined duties, especially those imposed on women.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appointed as amicus curiae, argued that the High Court’s observations lacked empirical or social reasoning and were disconnected from reality. She emphasized that judges must base their decisions on constitutional morality, not personal biases.
The Supreme Court also questioned the High Court’s authority to invoke Section 482 of the CrPC to set aside a conviction on the grounds that POCSO should be amended to recognize adolescent sexuality. The Court further questioned the High Court’s remit to overturn a conviction under the POCSO Act based on the notion of “consent,” given the minimum punishment prescribed by the statute.
The issue of adolescent sexuality and judicial discretion in cases involving consensual relationships between minors was also discussed, with references to the Law Commission’s 283rd report on the age of consent under the POCSO Act. The report highlighted concerns about the blanket criminalization of adolescent sexual activity and recommended that courts be granted discretion to impose lesser sentences in certain cases.
The State of West Bengal also filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s judgment on its merits, with Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi arguing that the High Court had misused its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution. He stressed that criminal convictions must be examined strictly based on statutory laws.