New Delhi: Setting aside a Calcutta High Court ruling which controversially said adolescent girls should ‘control their sexual urges’, the Supreme Court last week convicted the accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) case, but spared him a jail term by exercising its special powers under Article 142.
The court took this extraordinary step in view of the peculiar situation. The accused in the case was married to the victim and the couple had a child born out of the consensual relationship.
Noting that the legal system, society and even her own family failed the victim, a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan took the unusual step of not sending the accused to jail. “She has been subjected to enough trauma and agony. We do not want to add to the injustice done to the victim by sending her husband to jail,” the court said.
In its 44-page ruling, it added, “We as judges cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities. Now, at this stage, in order to do real justice to the victim, the only option left before us is to ensure that the accused is not separated from the victim.”
The State and the society must ensure that the family is rehabilitated till the family settles down in all respects.
Supreme Court
Relief to the accused was granted under Article 142 of the Constitution which empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its powers to do “complete justice” in any matter.
While some lawyers hailed the judgment as a “fitting exercise” of the top court’s powers under Article 142, others feel there is no one solution in such POCSO cases—involving minors in consensual sexual relationship—that reach courts.
Significantly, the ruling brings to light the complex situations arising due to the lack of awareness about POCSO Act, 2012—a statute that seeks to protect minors from sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. It provides for establishment of special courts for trial of such offences. The case also goes to show how youngsters are unaware of such child protection laws, and unintentionally commit acts seen as a crime under existing law.
Invocation of Article 142
Speaking to ThePrint, Supreme Court advocate Nizam Pasha said the ruling represents a fine balance between practicality on one hand and safeguarding the law and its protection of underage girls on the other.
The victim was only 14 when the incident occurred, Pasha said, adding neither the trial court awarding 20 years in jail to the accused, nor the high court carving out a general exception for “romantic relationships” and acquitting him “did complete justice” in this case.
Underlining that the top court also focused on the responsibility of the State and society to protect victims of child sexual abuse, Pasha saw the ruling is a “fitting exercise” of the powers under Article 142, which, he added, was included in the Constitution for exactly such cases.
Essentially, the Supreme Court overturned the acquittal order of the high court, convicted the accused, but did not send him to jail. In doing so, the top court recalled the high court’s misogynistic remarks, advising young women to control their sexual urges.
Meanwhile, advocate Deepak Chatap, who practices at Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, said the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 in this case signals a progressive shift in juvenile justice. “While protecting minors, especially girls, it’s essential that the law must evolve to distinguish sexual exploitation of minors from consensual adolescent relationships,” he said.
In today’s social context, safeguarding minors shouldn’t come at the cost of their agency. This ruling calls for a reform-oriented, nuanced application of the POCSO Act–one that upholds justice over mere punishment.
Advocate Deepak Chatap
‘Not a precedent’
Advocate Pallavi Garg said the judgment addresses critical shortcomings in the functioning of the State machinery and statutory bodies like the Child Welfare Committees (CWC). “In the present case, the court-appointed committee, in its final 28 January 2025 report, identified several systemic failures including the unavailability of legal aid and delays in investigation,” she told ThePrint.
Garg welcomed the Supreme Court’s “compassionate approach”, but added it cannot be a precedent, as mentioned explicitly by the court.
The judgment brings to light the harsh reality faced by many adolescent girls who suffer societal stigma and parental abandonment. In many cases, they are forced to marry their perpetrators to escape social ostracisation—sometimes with the accused agreeing to the marriage to evade prosecution.
Advocate Pallavi Garg
Garg said the State’s role is critical in ensuring the protection and rehabilitation of the victim, including comprehensive legal aid, along with free representation, benefits of state and central welfare schemes and compensation. “This case underscores the urgent need for accessible support systems like village and school-level counsellors to facilitate communication, guidance, and early intervention for rehabilitation purposes,” she said.
Also Read: With order on child pornography, SC clarifies meaning of ‘storage’ & ‘possession’ under POCSO
The peculiar case
In 2018, the 14-year-old girl fled her home in West Bengal to live with a 25-year-old man, and the two subsequently had a child.
Her mother filed a complaint. The man was convicted by a POCSO court under section 6 for the offence of aggravated sexual assault, and under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, which relate to kidnapping and abducting a woman to compel her into marriage or to defile her. The trial court sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000.
This decision was challenged by the man in the high court. A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court overturned his conviction in October, 2023.
In its acquittal order, the high court also said every female adolescent has the obligation to “protect her right to the integrity of her body; protect her dignity and self-worth; thrive for the overall development of herself transcending gender barriers; control of herself transcending gender barriers; control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of the society she is the loser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes.”
A two-judge Supreme Court bench in August last year restored his conviction, setting aside the acquittal by the high court and terming the remarks “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted”. However, the top court deferred the sentencing aspect to a later date, for reasons such as the accused and victim being on the same page and wanting to continue their cohabitation.
Experts’ view
Seema Misra, an advocate dealing with POCSO cases for over 10 years now, told ThePrint she has encountered such cases often, with each of them requiring a different treatment and solution. “It is a good and sensible judgment given in the circumstances and facts of the case,” Misra said, adding the Supreme Court handled it with sensitivity in view of the peculiar situation.
She pointed out how the top court formed a committee to determine the ground realities and whether the victim was willing to continue her relationship with the accused. This move, she explained, helped the court decide on sentencing, besides providing an all-round support to the victim, and her child.
It also considered the report of two women senior advocates who were appointed as amici curiae in this case.
Advocate Seema Misra
She also said the case highlights the lack of sex education in schools and awareness in teenagers about the legal framework that criminalises even consensual physical relationships between minors or a couple where one of the two partners is a minor.
“This happens often. In such situations at a very young age minors have to deal with societal disapproval, the complex criminal justice system which is not only expensive but has an adverse effect on their lives,” she explained.
Supreme Court advocate Aman Mehta also said that by recognising the victim’s trauma as a result of the relentless legal battle, systemic apathy, and institutional indifference, the court has reimagined sentencing in such complex matters through the lens of dignity, rehabilitation, and relational autonomy.
This judgment transcends conventional notions of criminal law and charts a new course towards a jurisprudence of empathy, dignity and contextual justice.
Advocate Aman Mehta
On the other hand, Supreme Court lawyer Javed Sheikh said the court was faced with a very difficult choice. “It was between sentencing the accused as per the law, thereby, pushing his family, including the victim, into destitution, and exercising powers under Article 142 to quash his sentence despite conviction,” he explained.
Delhi-based lawyer Urja Pandey, who practices before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, said the decision changes how the POCSO Act is understood, making lived realities equally important. “The law agrees that everyone should be protected from sexual abuse, but it must also consider the circumstances of underprivileged teens who are often abandoned and face social discrimination.”
Saying that the case caught her attention since the court, for the first time used Article 142 to spare sentencing despite conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Pandey added, “Justice Oka said that following statutory minimums could harm the survivor who is now a mother, and a part of a functioning family.”
The law requires the State to offer more than just punishments, she said while adding “it also requires helping survivors rebuild their lives through shelter, education, vocational help and support for the child.”
“The judgment authored by Justice Oka, in my view, has rightfully served the ends of justice,” Delhi-based lawyer Aayushi Mishra said.
Incarcerating the accused would have gravely jeopardized the welfare of the victim and the child, given that he was their only caregiver as failed as it may sound. As the victim herself stated, she would have suffered greatly had the accused been taken into custody.
Advocate Aayushi Mishra
Advocate Aveak Ganguly said the judgment issues broad directions on the requirement of comprehensive sex education and data-driven policy implementation in childcare. “While these are beneficial, it remains to be seen whether it is a missed opportunity for the court to have issued a more comprehensive set of guidelines, as done in Vishaka, to help spark the plug of social change.”
Saying that the case also looks at the urgent need for consensual relations to be factored into POCSO cases, advocate Sukriti Bhatnagar said, “The fact that the court said it isn’t a precedent is reflective of its due regard for separation of powers. The ball is squarely in the legislature’s court to amend existing laws, given the increasing frequency of such cases.”
Advocate Nauman Beig, said suspending the POCSO convict’s sentence is a pragmatic response to the Kafkaesque reality of the victim.
This case shows how society and State institutions fail young girls who fall in love. The victim was stigmatised and humiliated for her relationship, and her autonomy was snatched away from her, instead of supporting the victim in making different choices. She was abandoned by her parents and friends. Now, she has to raise a child with the accused, and has been running from pillar to post to secure her husband’s liberty.
Advocate Nauman Beig
Beig, however, added that the top court recognised ways in which patriarchy interacts with the lives of women and girls. “By securing the welfare of the victim and her child, the court has refused a purely doctrinal and formalist approach which upholds academic purity at the cost of grave injustice to victims,” he said.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Telegram has a seedy underbelly. It’s a hunting ground for paedophiles that’s got agencies worried
The Calcutta High Court was spot on with it’s observations. The Supreme Court, in it’s stupid pursuit of being loved by the liberal-secular cabal, has condemned the High Court’s remarks.
It speaks volumes about the corrupt media nd of the SC judges that they found the High Court’s remarks “objectionable and needless”.
The SC judges must first grow a spine, develop character and then maybe consider passing rules and judgements.
Of late, the SC has become a circus and the CJI it’s ring master.