The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a controversial judgment by the Calcutta High Court that had acquitted an accused in a sexual assault case and included “objectionable” remarks advising adolescent girls to “control sexual urges.” The apex court’s decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, also issued important directives on how courts should handle cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice Oka, pronouncing the verdict on behalf of the bench, highlighted that the court has laid down several guidelines for authorities dealing with POCSO cases. The Supreme Court also provided directions on how judgments should be articulated by lower courts, emphasizing the importance of staying focused on the legal aspects without incorporating personal or moral opinions.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on December 8, 2023, expressed strong disapproval of the high court’s observations, describing them as “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted.”
The top court had taken suo motu cognizance of the case, noting that judges are expected to avoid “preaching” when writing judgments.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court criticizes West Bengal government and hospital over RG Kar rape-murder case
The case had drawn significant attention after the Calcutta High Court, on October 18, 2023, acquitted a man previously sentenced to 20 years in prison for sexual assault. The high court’s judgment included contentious remarks suggesting that female adolescents should “control sexual urges,” asserting that society views girls as “losers” when they engage in sexual activity.
The West Bengal government also challenged the high court’s verdict, which had sparked widespread criticism for its approach to addressing issues of sexual consent and victim-blaming.
During the Supreme Court’s hearing on January 4, 2024, the bench had pointed out the “problematic” nature of certain paragraphs in the high court’s ruling. The top court found the high court’s judgment not only legally flawed but also morally inappropriate, as it deviated from the central issue of the appeal — the legality of the conviction.
In its December 8 order, the Supreme Court underscored that the high court’s observations violated the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court noted that the high court’s task was to adjudicate the merits of the appeal against the man’s conviction, without delving into irrelevant personal views or societal commentary.
Did you know that you can join The Theorist on WhatsApp and stay updated? Click here
The high court had controversially acquitted the man by describing the incident as a “non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship between two consenting adolescents,” despite the legal age of consent being a critical factor. The high court had gone further to advise female adolescents on their “duty” to control sexual urges to protect their dignity and self-worth.
The Supreme Court, in overturning this judgment, reiterated that judges must focus solely on the legal merits of the cases before them and avoid imposing personal moral standards. The apex court’s ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for how sexual assault cases, especially those involving minors, are handled by the judiciary.
This decision serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly in cases involving vulnerable sections of society. The Supreme Court’s intervention reinforces the need for sensitivity and adherence to legal principles in judicial proceedings.
