Case summary: Attorney General for India v. Satish and others 2021 

Case Title: Attorney General for India v. Satish and others 2021

Citations: SCC Online SC 1076 2022 1 SCC 793

Date of Judgment: November 18, 2021

Bench Composition: CJ. Uday Umesh Lalit; J. S. Ravindra Bhat; J. Bela M. Trivedi

Procedural history

Trial Court 

The case began in 2016, when the defendant Satish was accused for the offences under sections 342, 364, and 363 of IPC, and section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court discovered that defendant Satish was guilty of sexually assaulting 12-year-old girl and sentenced him to 3 years of imprisonment and fine.

High Court

Accused filed an appeal against order passed by Trial Court. In appeal, the High Court of Bombay ordered that accused was guilty under Section 8 of posco Act and found guilty for minor offence, 342 and 356 of IPC. The Bombay High Court, presided by Justice Janidiwala, made the following observation in her judgment. The act of pressing of breast of the child under 12 years, whether top removed or whether he inserted his hand inside the top and pressed the breast, would not fall under definition of sexual assault

Supreme Court

 The Attorney General of India and National Commission for Women, took Suo to cognizance of the issue. The matter brought before Supreme Court, arguing that High Court had interpreted law correctly. The Supreme Court stated that such interpretation would weaken child protection laws and create a harmful precedence for future cases.

Facts of the case 

1. In December 2016, The victim, a 12-year-old girl had gone out to buy guava 
2. Accused, Satish residing in the neighbourhood took victim to his house under pretext of giving her guava 
3. Accused pressed her breast and tried to remove his salwar 
4. The girl shouted, the accused pressed her mouth 
5. The girl narrated this incident to his mother and then they went to police station and filled FIR under section 354 of IPC and section 8 of POSCO ACT

Issues involved

1. Whether the act of pressing the breast of a 12-year-old girl amounts to sexual assault under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of the POSCO Act, 2012, or whether it falls only under Section 354 of the IPC (outraging modesty of a woman).
2. Whether the expression “physical contact” in Section 7 of the POSCO Act necessarily requires direct “skin-to-skin” contact, or whether contact through clothing is sufficient to constitute sexual assault.
3. Whether the High Court’s restrictive interpretation of Section 7 undermined the legislative intent behind the POSCO Act, which is designed to provide broad and effective protection to children against sexual offences.
4. Whether a narrow interpretation, like the one adopted by the Bombay High Court, could set a dangerous precedent and create loopholes that offenders might misuse to escape punishment.
5. Whether the presumption of culpability under Sections 29 and 30 of the POSCO Act (which place the burden of proof on the accused to disprove sexual intent) was correctly applied in this case.
6. Whether constitutional values, especially the protection of dignity, bodily integrity, and the right to life under Article 21, require courts to adopt a child-centric and purposive interpretation of child protection laws.

Arguments of parties

Appellant.   Attorney General for India 

1. The appellant strongly argued that the way the High Court of Bombay interpreted the provisions of the POSCO Act has negative impact on society at large. 
2. All the acts of accused, including taking the victim to his house, removing salwar, pressing breast, and mouth, constitute sexual assault under Section 7 of POSCO Act. 
3. Section 7 merely defines that sexual assault as any physical contact made with sexual intention, not necessarily direct skin-to-skin contact. 
4. However, Section 7 consists of two components. Firstly, involves touching vagina with sexual intent, and secondly, any other act with sexual intent that includes physical contact but without penetration. 
5. Therefore, mens rea  or sexual  contact is the most crucial aspect of sexual assault. 
6. The words touch and physical contact in Section 7 have been used interchangeably by legislature.
7. According to Section 29 and 30 of POSCO Act, the court is obligated to assume that accused has had sexual intent. 
8. It puts responsibility of the accused to show that he did not have such intention.

Arguments by accused 

1. The Supreme Court reversed the decision made by Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court stated that POSCO Act definition not necessarily says skin-to-skin contact. Any act that is performed with sexual intent that involves touching private parts or having child to touch them whether with clothes or without clothes is summoned to sexual assault.
2. The court when stated that conviction of accused under Section 7 and Act 8 of POSCO Act ensuring punishment was consistent with the provision of the Act.
3. In the case of Bandhu Vishwan Rao Barwar v. State of Maharashtra, 2016, a senior advocate representing accused strongly argued that the term sexual intent should not be restricted to fixed definition. The definition of assault and criminal force as available in IPC should not be applied to POSCO Act, since the Act provides its own definition of sexual assault.
4. The first part of Section 7 refers to the act of touching child’s private parts may not necessarily direct skin-to-skin contact. Second part explains that other acts with sexual intent involve physical contact without penetration, thus requires skin-to-skin contact be established by prosecution.
5. In Section 29 and 30 of POSCO Act, it makes difficult to accused to prove its innocence and interpretation should go against objective of Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
6. The advocate of accused referenced rule of lengthily, which mandates that ambiguities in penal laws should be interpreted in favour of accused.

Judgement 

1. The Supreme Court reversed the decision made by Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court stated that POSCO Act definition not necessarily says skin-to-skin contact. Any act that is performed with sexual intent that involves touching private parts or having child to touch them whether with clothes or without clothes is summoned to sexual assault.
2. The court when stated that conviction of accused under Section 7 and Act 8 of POSCO Act ensuring punishment was consistent with the provision of the Act.
3. The supreme court reversed the decision made by Bombay High court The supreme court stated that POSCO ACT defination need not necessarily says skin to skin contact
4. Any act that is performed with sexual intent that involves touching private parts or having child to touch them whether through clothes or without clothes it amounts to sexual assault 
5. The court reinstated the conviction of accused under section 7 and 8 of POSCO ACT ensuring punishment was consistent with the provisions of the act
6. The main  object of enacting POSCO ACT to protect children from sexual offences
7. The most important element for constituting sexual assault under section 7 of POSCO ACT is the sexual intent and not the skin-to-skin contact with child

Ratio Decidenti 

1. Any physical interaction with child’s private parts, even with or without clothes, is considered a sexual assault under the POSCO Act. 
2. The court made it clear that intention is required, not skin-to-skin touch contact. 
3. The court highlighted that the aim of the POSCO Act is to safeguard child’s dignity and physical integrity.
4. Therefore, this provision should be interpreted broadly and prioritized child safety over interest of offenders. 
5. The court stated that narrow interpretation like decision delivered by High Court served dangerous precedence to offenders to escape from the punishment.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court decided to prioritize the protection of children. It was in the verdict delivered by High Court. It made clear that even slightest physical touch with a child without skin-to-skin contact is demonstrated sexual assault under PASCO Act. This ruling effectively closed off gaps that could allow offenders escape from punishment. Child safety first. No offender can hide behind technical excuses.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Attorney General for India v. Satish (2021) has had a profound impact on the interpretation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act. By rejecting the “skin-to-skin” requirement introduced by the Bombay High Court, the Court reinforced that any form of sexual intent coupled with physical contact—whether through clothes or otherwise—amounts to sexual assault.

This judgment ensured that offenders cannot exploit loopholes or rely on technicalities to escape liability. It strengthened the purpose of the POSCO Act, which is to provide comprehensive protection to children from all forms of sexual abuse. The decision also sent a strong message to lower courts to adopt a child-centric approach when interpreting child protection laws, prioritizing the safety, dignity, and integrity of the victim over rigid or narrow legal technicalities.

Furthermore, the judgment reaffirmed the principle of purposive interpretation, especially in sensitive legislations like POSCO. It also empowered parents, guardians, and authorities to feel more confident that the law would not fail children due to restrictive judicial interpretations.

Conclusion

The case of Attorney General for India v. Satish is a very important decision for protecting children from sexual abuse. It shut down a dangerous loophole that could have let offenders go free just because there was no “skin-to-skin” contact. The Supreme Court made it clear that what really matters in sexual assault is the sexual intention of the accused, not whether the act happened directly on the skin or over clothes.

By focusing on the safety of children, the Court stayed true to the purpose of the POSCO Act and protected the child’s right to dignity and life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment makes sure that child safety is the top priority and helps build a safer environment for children, leaving no space for offenders to hide behind technical excuses.