New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the controversial judgment of the Calcutta High Court that acquitted a person accused of raping a minor and preaching that “girls must control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of the society she is the looser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes.”
What did the apex court say?
A bench of Justices AS Oka and AG Masih said, “In our judgment, we have given directions to high courts on how judgments have to be written in such cases and have constituted a three-member committee of experts which will give an option to the victim with respect to her future residence and income.”
Apex court verdict comes on a suo motu petition arising out of High Court remarks
The judgment of the Supreme court comes on a suo motu petition arising out of controversial remarks made by Calcutta High Court in a judgment delivered by it last year. The High Court judgment had stirred a controversy because it had not just made some controversial remarks in the judgment, but also acquitted the accused of charges of kidnapping, raping and sexual assault against a minor.
While the accused was sentenced to 20 year jail term by the trial court for offences of sexual assault and kidnapping, the High Court had acquitted the accused in the case and reversed the judgment.
What did the High Court say?
The High Court had in its judgment recorded, “It is the duty/ obligation of every female adolescent to: (i) Protect her right to integrity of her body. (ii) Protect her dignity and self-worth. (iii) Thrive for overall development of her self transcending gender barriers. (iv) Control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of the society she is the looser 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.”
The apex court while taking cognisance of the high court judgment said, “Prima facie, the said observations are completely in violation of the rights of the adolescents guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” And “Prima facie, we are of the view that while writing a judgment in such appeal, the Hon’ble Judges are not expected to express their personal views. They are not expected to preach. After having carefully perused the impugned judgment, we find that many parts thereof are highly objectionable and completely unwarranted,” the supreme court had added.
The supreme court had also criticised the stand of the high court saying “ In the appeal against conviction, the High Court was called upon to adjudicate only on the merits of the appeal and nothing else. But we find that the High Court has discussed so many issues which were irrelevant.”
