Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

Supreme Court Slams ‘Non-Exploitative’ Defense in POCSO Case: ‘Courts Cannot Commit Violence Against the Law’

23 August 2024 1:01 PM

By: sayum


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India overturned a contentious judgment by the Calcutta High Court that had acquitted an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The apex court, through a Suo Motu writ petition, strongly criticized the High Court’s reasoning, particularly its creation of the “non-exploitative sexual acts” category for minors, reaffirming the inviolability of the legal safeguards provided to children under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case arose from a Criminal Appeal filed by the State of West Bengal, challenging the October 2023 judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had acquitted an accused convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The case involved a 25-year-old man and a 14-year-old girl who had given birth to a child as a result of the accused’s actions. The High Court had controversially acquitted the accused, terming the relationship as a "non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship."

The Supreme Court took serious exception to the High Court's judgment, which, according to the apex court, was laden with personal opinions and irrelevant commentary that undermined the established legal framework. The High Court’s introduction of concepts such as "non-exploitative sexual acts" and its leniency towards what it termed a "romantic relationship" between the minor and the adult were harshly criticized.

The Supreme Court stated, “We fail to understand how a sexual act, which is a heinous offence, can be termed as non-exploitative.” The court firmly established that under Indian law, consent from a minor, especially in cases involving sexual acts, is irrelevant and that the law unequivocally protects minors under the age of 18 from any form of sexual exploitation.

The apex court reaffirmed that any sexual activity involving minors, regardless of perceived consent or the nature of the relationship, constitutes a punishable offense under both the IPC and the POCSO Act. The court emphasized, “Penetrative intercourse with a woman under eighteen years of age, with or without her consent, constitutes an offense of rape,” dismissing the High Court’s attempt to soften the legal stance on the matter.

The judgment highlighted the mandatory nature of punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which pertains to repeated rape.

Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, noted, “The courts must follow and implement the law. The courts cannot commit violence against the law,” underscoring the judiciary’s duty to uphold statutory provisions without letting personal opinions interfere.

This Supreme Court judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the non-negotiable legal protections afforded to minors under the Indian legal system. By overturning the High Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the strict enforcement of the POCSO Act and the IPC in cases involving sexual offenses against children. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on the judiciary’s approach to similar cases in the future, reinforcing the rule of law over subjective interpretations.

Date of Decision: 20 August 2024​.

In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents

Latest Legal News