The top court had in 2023 initiated a suo motu case in the wake of a Calcutta High Court ruling that had called for adolescent girls to “control” their sexual urges instead of “giving in to two minutes of pleasure”.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to impose a sentence on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, noting that he had later married the victim, who was 14 years old at the time of the incident in 2018 [In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent].
A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan exercised the Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief to the convict, referring to the matter as a wake-up call for society.
“What troubles us is the issue of sentencing. Though the victim did not treat the incident as heinous crime, she suffered because of it. This was because at an earlier stage, the victim could not make an informed choice due to the shortcomings in our society, our legal system and in her family,” the Court remarked.
The Court observed that the victim, now a mother, is keen on safeguarding her husband and maintaining the unity of their family.
“The society judged her, the legal system failed her and her own family abandoned her. Now she is at a stage where she is desperate to save her husband, she is emotionally committed to the accused and has become very possessive about her small family.”
“The facts of the case are eyeopener for everyone. It highlights the lacuna in our legal system.”
Supreme Court
The verdict was issued in a suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court in response to a controversial Calcutta High Court ruling, which had suggested that adolescent girls should “control” their sexual urges instead of “succumbing to two minutes of pleasure.”
The High Court’s comments sparked widespread debate as they introduced a ‘duty/obligation-based approach’ for teenagers, suggesting different standards of responsibility for adolescent boys and girls.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue, criticizing the High Court’s observations as sweeping, objectionable, irrelevant, moralistic, and unwarranted.
The West Bengal government had also challenged the High Court’s acquittal of the accused. Eventually, in August 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling and reinstated the conviction.
However, the Supreme Court postponed the sentencing, opting to await the report of a committee established to support the victim in making an informed choice about her future.
“The duty of the committee shall be to help the victim to make an informed choice whether she wants to continue to remain in the company of the accused and his family or wants to avail of the benefits offered by the State Government,” the top court had ordered
Today, the Supreme Court noted that, based on the committee’s report, although the incident is legally deemed a crime, the victim does not view it that way herself.
“The Committee records that it was not a legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim but rather it was the consequence that followed which took a toll on her. What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system and the constant battle to save the accused from punishment,” it added.
As a result, the Supreme Court chose not to impose any sentence on the convict. It also issued specific directions to the State government and served a notice to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, seeking further action on the broader concerns highlighted in the case.
