NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday criticised certain aspects of the Calcutta High Court‘s ruling, which had advised adolescent girls to restrain their sexual urges instead of succumbing to momentary pleasure, deeming these remarks “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted”.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal emphasised that judges should refrain from expressing personal views or preaching.
Read More: Monetary policy: Why RBI’s policy panel has kept repo rate unchanged while revising growth upwards
In the context of an appeal against conviction, the Supreme Court asserted that the High Court’s role was limited to assessing the appeal’s merits. Expressing personal opinions or delivering moralistic sermons, the Court noted, was inappropriate in such cases.
The Supreme Court further asserted that the High Court’s observations were in violation of the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution. Taking suo motu cognizance of the High Court judgment, the apex court issued notices to the State government and others.
Read More: Sainik School Employees To Receive Pensions On Time With New MoA Agreement: Here’s All Details
During the proceedings, the state government requested time to decide whether to appeal the verdict. Senior advocate Madhavi Divan was appointed as amicus curiae by the Supreme Court, with advocate Liz Mathew assisting the amicus.
The controversial High Court judgment, delivered by Justices Chitta Ranjan Dash and Partha Sarathi Sen, had advised young girls and boys to control their sexual urges while acquitting a man convicted of raping a minor with whom he had a ‘romantic affair.’
Read More: RBI plans unified framework for connected lending. Here’s how it will help
The High Court had expressed concerns about the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) treating consensual acts among adolescents as sexual abuse. Consequently, it called for the decriminalization of consensual sexual acts involving adolescents above 16 years.
The High Court’s opinion, suggesting that sexual urges are prompted by individual actions, led to the proposal of a ‘duty/obligation based approach’ to the issue. The bench recommended specific duties for both adolescent females and males, emphasizing the duty of every female adolescent to protect her body’s integrity, uphold her dignity and self-worth, and exercise control over sexual urges, as societal perception equates giving in to momentary pleasure with being a loser.
