IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS
SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2023
(2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ., delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J.)
In a landmark and emotionally charged judgment, the Supreme Court of India refused to send a convicted accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to jail, despite upholding his conviction. The Court ruled that though the law mandates a minimum sentence, it would not enforce it in this case, citing the significant emotional, societal, and systemic injustices already endured by the victim, who is now married to the accused and raising their child.
The case came before the Supreme Court via a criminal appeal by the State of West Bengal against a 2023 Calcutta High Court judgment that had acquitted the accused. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s verdict, restoring the Special POCSO Court’s original conviction. However, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Apex Court declined to impose the sentence, stating that such a move would do more harm than good to the victim.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted that the victim, now emotionally committed to the accused, did not view the act as a crime but suffered immensely due to the aftermath — including social judgment, legal proceedings, and financial struggles. At the time of the incident, the victim was 13 and the accused 25. They reportedly fell in love and married at a temple, after which her mother filed a police complaint. The accused was later convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code.
The Court found that societal failures — including the victim’s abandonment by her family, lack of state protection, and failure to offer proper guidance — had compounded her trauma. It emphasized that justice in this case required a compassionate approach rather than blind adherence to statutory minimums. The victim, now pursuing her education and caring for her daughter, was seen as being in a more stable situation. Sending the accused to jail, the Court observed, would break apart the only stability she had managed to build.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that this case should not serve as a precedent. Instead, it should be viewed as an illustration of how the legal system and societal norms can fail vulnerable individuals. The bench stressed the need for structural reforms, better adolescent protection, and greater support mechanisms.
In a series of directives, the Court ordered the State to act as the guardian of the victim and her child, bear all educational and living expenses, provide a better shelter, and help settle the debts she had incurred. It also involved the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, directing it to appoint a committee of experts to consider broader policy suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae. The Court demanded a compliance report and further hearings to ensure continued oversight. Ultimately, the Court declared that true justice in this instance lay in helping the victim rebuild her life, not in separating her from her husband through incarceration.
