The Supreme Court of India (SC) has reinstated the conviction of a man found guilty of raping a minor girl, reversing a previous acquittal by the Calcutta High Court (HC). The SC took up the case suo moto, meaning it initiated the hearing on its own, due to concerns over the HC’s judgement. The high court had controversially acquitted the man, arguing that the case involved a ‘non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship’ between two consenting adolescents, despite the victim’s age rendering consent legally irrelevant. However, the SC deemed the HC’s reasoning as highly problematic.
In its judgement, the HC had gone beyond the scope of the appeal and instead of focusing on the merits of the case, offered unsolicited advice to adolescent girls. The HC urged young girls to ‘control their sexual urges,’ claiming that in ‘the eyes of society, she is the loser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes.’ The HC also placed the responsibility for preventing sexual assault on the girl, stating it is her ‘duty/obligation’ to ‘protect her right to the integrity of her body; protect her dignity and self-worth; thrive for the overall development of herself transcending gender barriers; control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of the society she is the loser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes; protect her right to autonomy of her body and her privacy.’
The SC, in its suo moto order, strongly criticized these pronouncements, deeming them ‘highly objectionable and completely unwarranted’. The apex court pointed out that such remarks directly violated the girl’s ‘Right to Life’ and personal liberty, guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The SC further emphasized that judges are not expected to ‘preach’ while writing judgments, but rather to remain focused on legal arguments and evidence.
The SC’s decision to overturn the acquittal highlights the importance of holding perpetrators accountable for sexual crimes against minors, regardless of the victim’s age or the potential for societal pressures on the victim. It also serves as a reminder that the responsibility for preventing such crimes lies with the perpetrators and society at large, not with the victims. This case has sparked significant debate on the role of the judiciary in addressing sexual violence and the need for greater sensitivity and understanding when dealing with such cases.
