Case Summary: Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2024) | Applicability of Section 6 of the POCSO Act

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment, concerning the rights and protections of adolescents under the law, particularly in cases involving sexual offences and the role of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). This case involved appeals, constitutional questions, and a suo motu writ initiated by the Court. The key issues revolved around the legality of the High Court’s judgment, rehabilitation of victims, and the State’s failure to implement statutory obligations under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents

Citation: Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Judgment Date: August 20, 2024

Background

The case arose from Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024, filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court’s acquittal of an accused convicted under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court, while acquitting the accused, criticized existing laws and proposed a “rights-based approach” for adolescents engaged in consensual relationships. This judgment prompted a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Supreme Court, which sought to examine the larger implications of such observations on child protection laws.

Facts of the Case

Incident and Prosecution: The victim, a 14-year-old girl, left her home and lived with the accused, resulting in her pregnancy. The accused was 25 years old at the time. The Special Judge under the POCSO Act convicted the accused for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and kidnapping under the IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment.

High Court’s Findings: The High Court set aside the conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC, deeming the relationship “consensual” and “non-exploitative.” It introduced concepts such as “romantic relationships” between adolescents and emphasized the need to amend the POCSO Act to reflect evolving societal norms.

Suo Motu Writ Petition: The Supreme Court, recognizing the broader implications of the High Court’s observations, took suo motu cognizance to address legal, social, and policy issues arising from the case.

Issues

Applicability of the POCSO Act: Whether the High Court’s acquittal of the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was legally tenable, given the victim’s age and evidence of aggravated sexual assault.

Judicial Overreach: Whether the High Court’s commentary on “rights-based approaches” for adolescents constituted judicial overreach.

State’s Role and Failure: Whether the State fulfilled its statutory obligations under the JJ Act and POCSO Act to rehabilitate and support the victim.

Balancing Rights and Protections: Whether existing laws strike an appropriate balance between protecting adolescents from sexual exploitation and respecting their evolving autonomy.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a nuanced judgment, addressing the legal, procedural, and constitutional aspects of the case.

1. Conviction and Sentencing

The Court reinstated the conviction of the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. It emphasized that:

• Consent is irrelevant in cases involving minors under the POCSO Act.
• Sexual acts with minors, irrespective of context, constitute aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
• The High Court’s characterization of the relationship as “non-exploitative” was legally flawed and contrary to the intent of child protection laws.

2. Critique of High Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for:

• Including irrelevant and inappropriate observations regarding societal norms, adolescent behaviour, and sexual rights.
• Proposing amendments to the POCSO Act, which fell outside its judicial mandate.
• Ignoring the legal and constitutional protections afforded to minors under the POCSO Act and IPC.

The Court observed that judgments must be concise, focused on the issues, and free from personal opinions or advisory content.

3. Rehabilitation and Welfare

The Court highlighted the State’s failure to provide timely support and rehabilitation to the victim. It directed the State Government to:

• Form a committee comprising experts, including a clinical psychologist and a social scientist, to assist the victim in making informed choices about her future.
• Provide financial, educational, and social support to the victim and her child under the JJ Act.
• Ensure strict implementation of Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, which mandates immediate reporting to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and Special Court.

The Court emphasized that the victim’s abandonment by her family and the lack of State intervention left her vulnerable, compelling her to reside with the accused.

4. Recommendations for Implementation

To address systemic failures, the Court issued comprehensive directives:

State Governments: Create mechanisms to ensure compliance with the JJ Act and POCSO Act, including rehabilitation and aftercare support for victims.

Law and Justice Departments: Convene meetings to discuss implementation gaps and develop action plans for victim support.

Central Government: Promote awareness of schemes under the Ministry of Women and Child Development and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).

5. Rights vs. Protections

The Court reiterated that the POCSO Act is designed to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse. While acknowledging the need for a nuanced understanding of adolescent behaviour, it held that legal protections must prioritize the safety and welfare of minors.

6. Judicial Role

The Court cautioned against judicial overreach, emphasizing that:

• Judges must refrain from expressing personal opinions unrelated to the issues before them.
• Observations on legislative reforms should be left to appropriate forums, not judicial pronouncements.
• The Court’s directives sought to balance legal accountability, victim rehabilitation, and systemic reforms to prevent the recurrence of similar failures.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold child protection laws while avoiding unwarranted commentary. It reaffirms the sanctity of statutory safeguards under the POCSO Act and JJ Act and highlights the need for robust State action in rehabilitating victims. The case serves as a precedent for prioritizing the welfare and dignity of children in conflict with the law, ensuring their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are upheld.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment