The Supreme Court, today, pronounced the judgment in a suo motu case against a judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court that had made remarks related to the biological rationale behind sexual urges in female adolescents and underscoring that while libido is a natural aspect.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, "Under the JJ Act, there are enough provisions to take care of the future of the child till the age of 21 years...so we have issued those directions also. We have also said how judgment is to be written, something has to be said about the judgment as well and then we have issued directions to all States for implementation of Section 19(6) of POCSO read with Section 30 of JJ Act up to Section 43. We have also constituted a committee of experts to help the child make an informed choice...We have said in what manner judgment should be normally written...We have set aside the judgement and restored the conviction under Section 376 IPC."

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while dealing with a Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction in the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), had acquitted the appellant of the aforesaid offences. However, the High Court made a remark related to the biological rationale behind sexual urges in adolescents, underscoring that while libido is a natural aspect, the manifestation of sexual urges is contingent upon individual actions. The High Court stated, "It is the duty/ obligation of every female adolescent to: (i) Protect her right to integrity of her body. (ii) Protect her dignity and self-worth. (iii) Thrive for overall development of her self transcending gender barriers. (iv) 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. (v) Protect her right to autonomy of her body and her privacy."

As per the order of the Chief Justice of India, a suo motu writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was initiated mainly due to sweeping observations/findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court had observed that 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 Judgement.

The Court had 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.

The Court on May 9, 2024, had also said that there was a need for counselling by a professional psychologist to understand if the woman took an "informed decision", after she decided to reside with the accused.

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

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Augustine George Masih

Aastha Kaushik