8 Dec 2023 7:46 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Friday (December 8) expressed disapproval of certain observations made by the Calcutta High Court regarding the sexual behaviour of adolescents.
While deciding an appeal in a sexual assault case involving young adults, the High Court had issued a set of advisories to teenagers, particularly cautioning girls in their adolescence to 'control their sexual urges' to prevent being deemed a 'loser' in the eyes of society “when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes”.
Taking objection to these remarks, a suo motu case, titled "In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent", was initiated by the Supreme Court. Issuing notice to the State of West Bengal, the accused and the victim girl, the Court observed that these remarks were "objectionable" and violated the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said that the suo motu writ petition under Article 32 has been initiated, on the directions of the Chief Justice of India, "mainly due to sweeping observations/findings recorded by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court."
The bench observed :
"In an appeal against conviction, the High Court was called upon to decide only the merits of the appeal and nothing else. Prima facie, we are of the view that, in such a case, the Hon'ble judges are not expected to either express their personal views or preach.
After having carefully perused the judgment, we find that many parts thereof, including para 30.3, are highly objectionable and completely unwarranted. The said observations are completely in violation of rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution."
The bench issued notice to the State of West Bengal, the accused and the victim girl. It also appointed Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan as an amicus curiae to assist the Court. Advocate Liz Mathew was appointed to assist the amicus.
The State was asked to inform the Court whether it has filed an appeal against the judgment or whether it intended to file an appeal. Justice Oka orally said that even the merits of the reversal of the conviction also seemed doubtful, though that issue is not within the scope of the suo motu case.
Some of the observations made in the High Court judgment, which the Supreme Court has found to be problematic, are :
“It is the duty or obligation of every female adolescent to (i) Protect her right to the integrity of her body, (ii) Protect her dignity and self-worth, (iii) Thrive for the overall development of her self-transcending gender barriers, (iv) Control sexual urge or 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, (v) Protect her right to autonomy of her body and her privacy.
It is the duty of a male adolescent to respect the aforesaid duties of a young girl or woman and he should train his mind to respect a woman, her self-worth, her dignity and privacy, and her right to autonomy of her body.”
The judgment delivered by the High Court on October 18 came in an appeal by a young boy sentenced to 20 years in prison for the offence of sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code. While acquitting the appellant, a division bench of Justices Chitta Ranjan Dash and Partha Sarathi Sen emphasised the absence of provisions in the POCSO Act for consensual, non-exploitative relationships between adolescents aged 16-18.
Citing the principle of 'Dharmo Rakshyati Rakshyita' (one who protects the law is protected by the law) from the Mahabharata, the High Court outlined specific duties for adolescent boys and girls. It highlighted the duty of females to protect their rights to body integrity, dignity, and self-worth, urging them to transcend gender barriers and control sexual urges. The male adolescents were directed to respect these duties, training their minds to respect women's self-worth, dignity, privacy, and autonomy.
In this judgment that triggered a controversy, the high court delved into the biological explanation for sexual urges in adolescents, emphasising that while libido is natural, sexual urges depend on individual actions. It deemed sexual urges abnormal and non-normative without commitment or dedication. It noted –
“We do not want our adolescents to do anything that shall push them from the dark to the darker side of life. It is normal for each adolescent to seek the company of the opposite sex, but it is not normal for them to engage in sex devoid of any commitment and dedication. Sex shall come automatically to them when they grow self-reliant, economically independent and a person which they dreamt one day to be, it concluded.”
In June this year, the top court had also acted on its own motion against an Allahabad High Court order directing the examination of a woman's horoscope to determine if she was a 'mangalik'.
Background
In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent | SMW (Civil) No. 3 of 2023