New Delhi: The Supreme Court will pronounce today its verdict on a suo motu petition, In Re: right to privacy of adolescents, arising out of controversial remarks made by Calcutta High Court in a judgment that said adolescent 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.”
Apex Court earlier this year took cognisance of remarks
The Supreme Court had earlier this year taken cognisance of these remarks by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on its own accord after an outrage swept the legal fraternity over the remarks by the High Court.
Calcutta High Court made these remarks while deciding a case of kidnapping and sexual assault against a minor girl
The Calcutta High Court had made these remarks and recorded the observations in its judgment while deciding a case of kidnapping and sexual assault against a minor girl.
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.”
What did the Apex Court say?
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.”