Trending News
SC sets aside Calcutta high court order advising adolescent girls to ‘control sexual urges’ | India News
NEW DELHI: Strongly disapproving of the sweeping observations made by the Calcutta high court, including advising adolescent girls to control their sexual urges instead of giving in to “two minutes of pleasure” while deciding a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court on Tuesday urged judges to decide cases based on law and facts and not to indulge in preaching or expressing personal opinions in adjudication.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan not only set aside the high court’s remarks but also its verdict in 2018 of acquitting an accused who was in physical relationship with a 14-year old minor girl and out of which a child was born.
The top court convicted him under the Pocso Act and said it would decide on the quantum of punishment. It also directed West Bengal govt to form a committee of three experts, including a clinical psychologist and a social scientist, to interact with the girl to help her make an informed choice whether she wants to continue to remain in the company of the accused or avail of the state’s benefits.
Referring to various observations made by the HC, including carving out a non-existing category of “romantic relationships” in rape cases and suggesting amendment in laws to decriminalise consensual sexual acts involving adolescents above 16 years, the court said the HC’s remarks were shocking.
“A judgment of the court cannot contain the judge’s personal opinions on various subjects. Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the court by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general. The judge has to decide a case and not preach. The judgment cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material. A judgment must be in simple language and should not be verbose. Brevity is the hallmark of quality judgment. We must remember that judgment is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature. However, we find that the impugned judgment contains personal opinion of the Judges advice to the younger generation and advice to the legislature,” the court said.
The bench agreed that the relationship was consensual as there was no evidence of enticing the victim and she had left the house on her own but held that the offences punishable under Section 6 of Pocso Act and Sub- sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the IPC were made out. It said whether such offence arises from a romantic relationship is irrelevant. The court also expressed concern over the Child Welfare Committees in states not doing its job in reaching out to the children in need of care and protection.
“It is the responsibility of the State to take care of helpless victims of such heinous offences. Time and again, we have held that the right to live a dignified life is an integral part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution… The minor child, who is the victim of the offences under the Pocso Act, is also deprived of the fundamental right to live a dignified and healthy life. The same is the case of the child born to the victim as a result of the offence… Therefore immediately after the knowledge of the commission of a heinous offence under the Pocso Act, the State, its agencies and instrumentalities must step in and render all possible aid to the victim children, which will enable them to lead a dignified life,” the bench said.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan not only set aside the high court’s remarks but also its verdict in 2018 of acquitting an accused who was in physical relationship with a 14-year old minor girl and out of which a child was born.
The top court convicted him under the Pocso Act and said it would decide on the quantum of punishment. It also directed West Bengal govt to form a committee of three experts, including a clinical psychologist and a social scientist, to interact with the girl to help her make an informed choice whether she wants to continue to remain in the company of the accused or avail of the state’s benefits.
Referring to various observations made by the HC, including carving out a non-existing category of “romantic relationships” in rape cases and suggesting amendment in laws to decriminalise consensual sexual acts involving adolescents above 16 years, the court said the HC’s remarks were shocking.
“A judgment of the court cannot contain the judge’s personal opinions on various subjects. Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the court by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general. The judge has to decide a case and not preach. The judgment cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material. A judgment must be in simple language and should not be verbose. Brevity is the hallmark of quality judgment. We must remember that judgment is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature. However, we find that the impugned judgment contains personal opinion of the Judges advice to the younger generation and advice to the legislature,” the court said.
The bench agreed that the relationship was consensual as there was no evidence of enticing the victim and she had left the house on her own but held that the offences punishable under Section 6 of Pocso Act and Sub- sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the IPC were made out. It said whether such offence arises from a romantic relationship is irrelevant. The court also expressed concern over the Child Welfare Committees in states not doing its job in reaching out to the children in need of care and protection.
“It is the responsibility of the State to take care of helpless victims of such heinous offences. Time and again, we have held that the right to live a dignified life is an integral part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution… The minor child, who is the victim of the offences under the Pocso Act, is also deprived of the fundamental right to live a dignified and healthy life. The same is the case of the child born to the victim as a result of the offence… Therefore immediately after the knowledge of the commission of a heinous offence under the Pocso Act, the State, its agencies and instrumentalities must step in and render all possible aid to the victim children, which will enable them to lead a dignified life,” the bench said.
