IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS V. 2024

IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS V. 2024

Case Title and Citation: IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS V. (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) no.3 of 2023 with CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1451 OF 2024) 2024 INSC 614 (20 August 2024)

Factual Background

The matter concerned a conviction that arose after the mother of a 14-year-old girl (the victim) filed a missing report on May 20, 2018. It was discovered that the victim was residing with a 25-year-old man (the accused), and despite requests from her mother, she did not return home. The victim subsequently gave birth to a female child, of which the accused is the admitted biological father. Based on the mother’s complaint, a special judge convicted the accused for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and for rape of a minor under Sections 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with kidnapping charges. The special judge imposed a sentence of twenty years of rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO Act offense. The accused appealed to the Calcutta High Court, arguing the relationship was consensual and non-exploitative. The High Court overturned the conviction for kidnapping and enticement, finding the victim left voluntarily. However, the High Court proceeded to use its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to set aside the convictions for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, concluding that the consensual, non-exploitative nature of the relationship justified the acquittal. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter on December 7, 2023, based on the High Court’s “objectionable and unwarranted” remarks and findings. The State of West Bengal also filed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Calcutta High Court was justified in using its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction for rape and aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act and IPC on the basis that the individuals were involved in a consensual romantic relationship.
2. Whether the existence of a consensual or romantic relationship between the victim and the accused can serve as an exception to the offenses established under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC.
3. Whether the State Government failed in its statutory duty to provide care, protection, and rehabilitation to the victim, who was a child in need of care and protection.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, through a Division Bench, set aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment and restored the conviction of the accused for the offenses punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC. The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused for the charges of kidnapping and abduction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The Court found the accused guilty, but the issue of sentencing was deferred until an expert committee submitted a report. The Supreme Court further directed the State Government to form a committee of experts, including a clinical psychologist and a social scientist, to assess the victim’s situation and help her make an informed choice regarding her future.

Reason for the decision

1. Irrelevance of Consent in POCSO Cases: The Court confirmed that the law makes no exception for consensual relationships when the victim is under 18 years of age. Under Section 375 of the IPC (Clause ‘sixthly’), having penetrative intercourse with a woman under 18 years, with or without her consent, constitutes the offense of rape. Therefore, the existence of a romantic relationship is irrelevant when deciding guilt under Section 6 of the POCSO Act or Section 376 of the IPC. The High Court’s concept of a “non-exploitative sexual act” was deemed peculiar and nonsensical, especially given the victim was 14 years old, and the sexual act led to pregnancy, which constitutes aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
2. Improper Exercise of Discretionary Power: The High Court acted improperly by using its plenary powers under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction where the guilt of the accused was established. The Court emphasized that in serious offenses like rape, even if a settlement were reached between the parties, the prosecution cannot be quashed. Courts must exercise their discretionary powers in compliance with the law, not in defiance of it.
3. Constitutional and Statutory Violation by the State: The State machinery failed to follow the law, starting with Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, which mandates police to report the matter to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and the Special Court within 24 hours. Since the victim was a minor subjected to sexual assault and was abandoned by her parents, she was a “child in need of care and protection” under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act). The CWC has a mandatory duty to take suo motu cognizance and ensure the victim’s care, protection, and rehabilitation based on an individual care plan (Section 30 read with Section 39 of the JJ Act). The failure to implement these measures deprived the victim of the chance to make an informed choice about her future, forcing her to seek shelter with the accused for survival. This State failure violated the victim’s fundamental right to live a dignified and healthy life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. Critique of High Court’s Language: The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s judgment for being perverse and containing the judges’ personal opinions, advice to adolescents and the legislature, and irrelevant observations on topics like peer pressure, sexual urges, and duties of female adolescents. The Court stressed that judgments must be simple, concise, and confined to findings on the legality and adequacy of the sentence based on evidence, not serving as a platform for personal views or general advice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Calcutta High Court’s acquittal, reaffirming that the accused’s actions constituted rape and aggravated sexual assault under the IPC and POCSO Act, irrespective of the claim of consent or romantic involvement, as the victim was a minor. The judgment strongly criticized the High Court’s judicial overreach and failure to adhere to the statutory mandate. Crucially, the Supreme Court highlighted the pervasive failure of the State machinery to protect and rehabilitate victims of POCSO offenses as mandated by the POCSO Act and the JJ Act, and directed State Governments across India to strictly enforce statutory provisions for the care and re-integration of these vulnerable children.