New Delhi, Aug 20
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment that had advised adolescent girls to control their sexual urges and had acquitted a 20-year-old man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for indulging in sexual activity with a minor girl. A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan – which restored the conviction of the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Sections 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code – also issued guidelines on how to write judgments.
The top court said a committee of experts will take a call on the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the convict. In its 2023 judgment, the Calcutta High Court had made certain “objectionable” observations advising adolescent girls to “control sexual urges” and had acquitted the man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl.
Taking strong exception to the Calcutta High Court’s advice to adolescent girls to control their sexual urge, the Supreme Court had on December 8, 2023 termed it as “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted” and asked judges not to preach.
“Prima facie, we are of the view that the judges are not expected to express personal views or preach,” the Bench had said while taking suo motu cognisance of the matter due to “sweeping observations” made in the October 18, 2023 order of the high court. While dealing a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the high court had said that adolescent girls should “control sexual urges” and “not give in to two minutes of pleasure”.
“After having carefully perused the (high court) judgement, we find that many parts thereof, including paragraph 30.3, are highly objectionable and completely unwarranted. Prima facie, the said observations are completely in violation of rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life, liberty and privacy),” the top court had said, adding “In an appeal against conviction, the High Court was called upon to decide only the merits of the appeal and nothing else.”
The Bench had appointed senior advocate Madhavi Divan as amicus curiae to assist the court.
While hearing an appeal by a boy sentenced to 20-year imprisonment for sexual assault, the High Court had acquitted him, terming it a case of “non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship between two consenting adolescents, though consent in view of the age of the victim is immaterial”.
However, the top court had wondered if the state government had challenged the acquittal or not.
The high court had said it’s the duty/obligation of every female adolescent to “protect her right to integrity of her body; protect her dignity and self-worth; thrive for overall development of herself transcending gender barriers; control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of the society she is the loser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes; protect her right to autonomy of her body and her privacy.”
The high court had further said, “It’s the duty of a male adolescent to respect the aforesaid duties of a young girl or woman and he should train his mind to respect a woman, her self-worth, her dignity and privacy, and her right to autonomy of her body.”
