Last updated:
Supreme Court of India. (data map)
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said several directions have been passed directing the authorities to handle cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a Calcutta High Court order in which it acquitted an accused in a sexual assault case and made “objectionable” observations advising teenage girls to “control their sexual impulses”.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said various directions have been passed directing the authorities to handle cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO).
Justice Oka, who delivered the verdict on behalf of the judge, said he also gave instructions on how the court should write the judgment.
On December 8 last year, the Supreme Court criticized the judgment, saying that some of the high court's views were “extremely objectionable and baseless.”
The Supreme Court has taken note of some observations made by High Court judges and filed a writ petition on its own, stating that judges should not be “preachy” while writing judgments.
The West Bengal government has also challenged the High Court's October 18, 2023 verdict in which these “objectionable observations” were made.
In its judgment, the High Court stated that a female teenager should “control her sexual impulses” because “when she succumbs to sexual pleasure for less than two minutes, she is a failure in the eyes of society.”
The High Court made the remarks as it heard an appeal by a man sentenced to 20 years in prison for sexual assault. The man was acquitted by the High Court.
On January 4, when hearing the case, the Supreme Court pointed out that certain paragraphs in the High Court's judgment were “problematic” and that writing such a judgment was “absolutely wrong.”
The Supreme Court, in its order passed on December 8 last year, referred to certain observations of the High Court and said, “Prima facie, the above observations are completely violative of the rights of juveniles (right to life) guaranteed under Article 21. and individuals Liberty) of the Constitution of India. It noted that the question before the High Court was regarding the legality and validity of the order and judgment dated 19/20 September 2022, pursuant to which a man was convicted of Article Offenses under Section 363 (Kidnapping) and Section 366 (Kidnapping, abduction or seduction of woman).
“The suo motu writ petition was initiated under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the orders of the Chief Justice of India, mainly due to the comprehensive observations/findings recorded by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the impugned judgment,” it said.
The Supreme Court, in an appeal against the conviction, said the High Court ruled only on the merits of the appeal and nothing else.
“But we find that the High Court discussed many irrelevant issues. On the face of it, we are of the view that judges should not express personal views while writing judgments on such appeals. They should not preach,” it said.
In its verdict, the High Court acquitted the man, saying it was “a case of non-exploitative consensual sexual relations between two teenagers, although consent was immaterial given the age of the victims”.
The High Court said that it is the duty of every female adolescent to “protect her right to bodily integrity; to protect her dignity and self-worth; to transcend gender barriers and achieve all-round development of herself; to control her sexual impulses because in the eyes of society, when she succumbs to When she enjoys less than two minutes of sexual pleasure, she is a loser; protect her bodily autonomy and privacy.”
“A male adolescent must respect the above obligations 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 bodily autonomy,” the high court said.
(This report has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from United News Agency-PTI)
