State Challenges Calcutta HC's Judgment With Objectionable Remarks Against Adolescent Females: Supreme Court Says Every Paragraph Problematic

Through a Special Leave Petition, the State of Calcutta has also challenged the Calcutta High Court impugned judgment, in which it was observed that "It is the duty/obligation of every female adolescent to Control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of the society she is the looser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes". Earlier, the Supreme Court had taken suo moto cognisance of the said judgment.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for the State apprised the court that the appeal was listed before another bench of the Supreme Court today, however, the bench could not sit for certain exigencies.

Noting the same, a Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while referring to each paragraph of the judgment as "problematic", observed, "It is being pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State government that even the State has challenged the judgment in respect of the suo motu proceedings having initiated. The said SLP will have to be heard along with the present suo motu writ petition. Registry to list the SLP along with the suo motu writ petition on next Friday, after taking approval from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. List it on next Friday".

During the hearing, Justice Oka remarked, "See, it is not only about the observations. See the kind of findings...we must deal with it".

To which, Senior Advocate Madhavi Diwan appearing as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court said, "It is not a question between adolescents. He was not an adolescent at all. He was 25...".

Pursuant to which, when Ahmadi tried to draw the Court's attention to a paragraph of the impugned judgment which the Court even mentioned in the order, Justice Oka commented, "Yes every para is problematic. We have marked every paragraph. What we suggest is, in the course, so many findings have been recorded. From where do these concepts come, we don't know. But we want to deal with each and everything that is said. Your assistance is required".

The bench was dealing with a Suo Motu Writ Petition, initiated based on the administrative order issued by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court with certain objectionable remarks.

Earlier, the bench while considering the judgement, said, "In the appeal against conviction, the High Court was called upon to adjudicate only on the merits of the appeal and nothing else. But we find that the High Court has discussed so many issues which were irrelevant. Prima facie, we are of the view that while writing a judgment in such appeal, the Hon’ble Judges are not expected to express their personal views. They are not expected to preach".

The Court also observed that the remarks passed by the Calcutta High Court were strongly objectionable and entirely unjustified. The Court also remarked that such observations appear to be in clear violation of the rights bestowed upon adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. "After having carefully perused the impugned judgment, 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 the rights of the adolescents guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India", ordered the Court.

Additionally, the bench said that the Judges should refrain from articulating their personal opinions in judgments and that it is not within Judges' purview to advocate or espouse personal viewpoints while crafting a judgment.

Cause Title: In Re: Right To Privacy Of Adolescent [Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) NO(s). 3/2023]