Case Summary: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents2024 INSC 614

• FULL TITLE: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents W/P (C), 3/2023
• CITATTION: 2024 INSC 614
• BENCH: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
• Date of Judgment: August 20, 2024
• Relevant Statutes:  

1. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Sections 3, 5, 6, 19
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 361, 363, 366, 375, 376(2)(n), 376(3)
3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) – Sections 2(14), 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 39, 46
4. Constitution of India – Articles 21, 226
5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 313, 482

Facts

The mother of a fourteen-year-old girl filed a First Information Report on May 29, 2018, stating that her minor daughter had left home on May 20, 2018. It was found that a twenty-five-year-old man had enticed her to leave. The victim did not return despite repeated requests. She became pregnant and gave birth to a female child, with the accused being the biological father.

The Special Judge under the POCSO Act convicted the accused for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, sentencing him to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence. The Calcutta High Court, however, acquitted the accused by exercising powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC, citing it as a “non-exploitative consensual relationship” and making various observations about adolescent sexuality, rights, and duties.

The Supreme Court took Suo motu cognizance of the High Court’s judgment and converted it into a writ petition, while the State of West Bengal filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal.

Issues Involved

1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC by exercising powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC?
2. Whether the observations made by the High Court regarding adolescent sexuality, consensual relationships, and duties of adolescents were appropriate and relevant?
3. Whether the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were established?
4. What are the obligations of the State machinery under Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act towards victims of sexual offences?

Arguments from both sides:

Petitioner’s Arguments (State of West Bengal):

• The accused committed heinous offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC, which were duly proved
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the conviction on grounds of sympathy
• The law does not recognize “non-exploitative sexual assault” – all such acts against minors are criminal
• The observations of the High Court were inappropriate, irrelevant, and perverse

Arguments by court:

• The High Court’s judgment contained highly objectionable portions including victim-blaming observations
• The victim was never given an opportunity to make an informed choice about her future
• State machinery failed to implement provisions of POCSO Act and JJ Act for victim’s rehabilitation
• The observations about adolescent sexuality, duties of female adolescents, and rights-based approach were entirely unwarranted

Respondent’s Arguments (Accused and Victim):

• Both the accused and victim wished to continue their cohabitation
• The victim had no support from her parents and was dependent on the accused
• A humane view should be taken considering the ground realities

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the conviction of the accused for offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC. The Court held:

On the High Court’s Observations: The observations made by the High Court were “utterly irrelevant,” “shocking,” and exhibited perversity. The High Court had no authority to express personal opinions on adolescent sexuality, create non-existent categories like “older adolescents” or “non-exploitative sexual acts,” prescribe duties for female adolescents, or criticize existing legislation while deciding an appeal.

On Conviction: The offences under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC were clearly established. Under Section 375(sixthly) of the IPC, penetrative intercourse with a woman under eighteen years, with or without consent, constitutes rape. The concept of “romantic relationship” or “consensual non-exploitative sexual acts” has no place when dealing with offences under POCSO Act.

On Exercise of Plenary Powers: The High Court could not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC to acquit an accused whose guilt had been proved, even on grounds of settlement, sympathy, or rehabilitation concerns. Such offences are non-compoundable and involve moral turpitude.

On State’s Failure: The Court severely criticized the complete failure of State machinery to implement Section 19(6) of POCSO Act and provisions of the JJ Act. The victim was abandoned by parents and received no support from Child Welfare Committee, police, or other authorities, forcing her to seek shelter with the accused.

On Acquittal for IPC Offences: The Court upheld the acquittal for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC as there was no evidence of kidnapping or enticement – the victim left of her own volition.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Sexual acts with a child below 18 years constitute statutory rape under Section 375 IPC regardless of consent, and no concept of “non-exploitative” or “consensual” sexual assault exists in law when the victim is a minor
2. Courts must follow and implement the law and cannot commit “violence against the law” by introducing non-existent legal categories or expressing personal opinions on social issues
3. The High Court cannot exercise plenary powers under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC to quash convictions in serious offences like rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, even on grounds of settlement, sympathy, or welfare considerations
4. Section 19(6) of POCSO Act mandates police to report matters to Child Welfare Committee within 24 hours, and non-compliance violates Article 21 rights of victim children
5. Child Welfare Committees have mandatory duty under JJ Act to take suo motu cognizance and ensure care, protection, and rehabilitation of victims of sexual offences who are children in need of care and protection
6. The right to live a dignified life under Article 21 encompasses the right of victim children to receive State support for rehabilitation and reintegration into society

Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that there is a need for introspection and course correction at all levels, including the judiciary, regarding rehabilitation of POCSO victims. The Court noted that parents often abandon victims of sexual offences, making State intervention crucial. The judgment emphasized that judgments should be in simple language, avoid verbosity, and not contain personal opinions, advice to parties, or subjects beyond the controversy. Brevity is the hallmark of quality judgment – a judgment is neither a thesis nor literature.

Final Decision

Result: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal.

Orders Passed:

1. The High Court’s judgment was set aside and the Special Court’s conviction restored for offences under Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC
2. Acquittal for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was confirmed
3. Sentencing was deferred pending expert committee report
4. West Bengal Government directed to constitute expert committee (clinical psychologist, social scientist, child welfare officer) to: 
   • Meet the victim and inform her about State support offered
   • Help her make informed choice about her future
   • Submit report by October 18, 2024
5. All States/UTs directed (through Law Secretaries) to: 
   • Ensure strict implementation of Section 19(6) POCSO Act
   • Implement relevant provisions of JJ Act for victim rehabilitation
   • Frame rules under Section 46 JJ Act for aftercare support
   • Submit compliance reports within two months
6. Ministry of Women and Child Development directed to compile State reports and submit comprehensive report within three months
7. Matter listed for sentencing consideration on October 21, 2024

Significance: This landmark judgment reinforces the strict liability nature of POCSO offences, emphasizes State’s constitutional duty to rehabilitate victims, and provides comprehensive guidelines for implementation of victim protection mechanisms under POCSO Act and JJ Act.