The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up a Calcutta High Court ruling advising adolescent girls to control their sexual urges to prevent being deemed a loser in the eyes of society. The Supreme Court stated that observation problematic and questioned the legal principles invoked in the judgement.
In December, hearing an appeal in a sexual assault case involving young adults, the Calcutta high Court had issued a set of advisories to teenagers with the aforesaid observations. The advisories led to the apex court taking suo moto cognizance on the direction of the Chief Justice of India. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan is hearing the suo moto case against the controversial verdict.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan was appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the court, with Advocate Liz Mathew assisting her. Furthermore, the State was also asked to inform the bench of its intention to file an appeal against the judgement.
On Thursday, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal informed the top court that an appeal has been filed, adding that it was listed today before another bench of the court but the bench did not sit.
During the proceeding, Justice Oka stated that the matter is not only about the observation but also about the findings of the court. He added that writing such judgements is absolutely wrong and questioned the kind of principles the judges have invoked. He underlined that in case of settlement, there is a series of judgement on that but here the court has said that the POCSO section should be amended and they will exercise power under Section 482. However, Justice Oka also pointed out that the West Bengal government’s special leave petition would have to be heard along with this suo motu petition.
Following, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi told the bench to see another paragraph apart from the paragraph which has been produced before the court. In response to this, Justice Oka said that every paragraph of the judgement is problematic and that they have marked all the paragraphs. Replying to the bench, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi said that it is a huge problem and therefore the State is also in appeal and that they are on both sides.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, the amicus curiae, also argued that the Calcutta High Court’s observation was wrong insofar as the question of sexual activity between adolescents did not arise at all. Advocate Madhavi Divan mentioned that the man was not an adolescent at the time.
Advocate Ahmadi added that the man was 25 and she was only 14. He noted that this is the mandate of POCSO and that is the legislative intent. He continued that in some cases it may have harsh results, but this is the legislative will and also the recommendation is that they should leave it to the court, which is strange.
Agreeing, Justice Oka said that it is very strange adding that when it is in the teeth of the statute, how can they leave it to the court. He mentioned that the next hearing on the matter will be on January 12.