The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticized a judgment from the Calcutta High Court, asserting that judges are not expected to express personal views or preach.
The Top Court termed the High Court’s observations, which advised young girls to “control sexual urges” and urged adolescent boys to train themselves to respect women, as “highly objectionable and unwarranted.”
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal emphasized that these remarks completely violate the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Calcutta High Court, in its October 18 judgment, had suggested that adolescent girls should “control sexual urges” and refrain from “giving in to two minutes of pleasure.” The apex court clarified that the High Court’s jurisdiction was to decide the legality and validity of an order and judgment dated September 19/20, 2022, convicting a man for offenses under sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage), as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.
The Apex Court noted that the suo motu writ petition had been initiated in response to the sweeping and objectionable observations made by the division bench of the High Court. The bench stressed that, in an appeal against conviction, the High Court was obligated to decide only the merits of the appeal and not express personal views or preach. The court, after careful scrutiny of the judgment, found several parts, including paragraph 30.3, to be highly objectionable and in violation of the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench issued notice to the West Bengal government and other parties involved in the case, emphasizing that judges are not expected to express personal views or preach. Senior advocate Madhavi Divan was appointed as amicus curiae, and advocate Liz Mathew was assigned to assist the amicus. The matter is scheduled for hearing on January 4, 2024.
The High Court had made these controversial observations while hearing an appeal by a boy sentenced to 20 years in prison for sexual assault.
The High Court had acquitted the boy, characterizing the case as a “non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship between two consenting adolescents.” The High Court further asserted the duty of every female adolescent to protect her right to the integrity of her body, dignity, and self-worth, and the duty of a male adolescent to respect and train his mind to respect women.
