The Supreme Court of India, in a noteworthy development on Friday, strongly condemned the recent observations made by the Calcutta High Court, where young girls were advised to “control sexual urge.” The apex court deemed these remarks as “objectionable and unwarranted,” highlighting that such expressions violate the fundamental rights of adolescents protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal took a firm stand against the controversial statements, emphasizing the need for judges to refrain from expressing personal views or engaging in preaching. The court, expressing concern over the potential infringement of the rights of adolescents, issued a notice to the West Bengal government and other relevant parties involved in the case, signaling its intent to delve deeper into the matter.
This legal saga began with the Calcutta High Court’s observations, which were part of its judgment in a case related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The division bench, while announcing its order, made statements suggesting that while it is normal for adolescents to seek companionship with the opposite sex, engaging in sex without commitment and dedication is not normal. The contentious remarks further implied that every female adolescent should exercise control over their sexual urges, cautioning that succumbing to the fleeting pleasure of a mere two minutes could result in societal disapproval, with the suggestion that girls should protect their dignity and self-worth.
The Supreme Court, on its own initiative (suo moto), took cognizance of these observations on October 18, 2023. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud played a pivotal role in initiating the proceedings, and the matter was subsequently assigned to the bench of Justices Oka and Mithal. The apex court, recognizing the significance of the issue at hand, appointed senior advocate Madhavi Divan to assist in the case, ensuring a comprehensive and fair examination of the legal aspects involved.
The central argument put forth by the Supreme Court revolves around the perceived violation of the rights guaranteed to adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution, which enshrines the right to life and personal liberty. The court, prima facie, expressed its disapproval of judges expressing personal opinions or engaging in moralistic preaching. This stance aligns with the principle that the judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply the law impartially, without imposing personal beliefs on the legal process.
The court’s notice to the West Bengal government and other parties signals its intent to thoroughly examine the context and implications of the Calcutta High Court’s remarks. By doing so, the Supreme Court aims to ensure that legal judgments adhere to constitutional principles and do not inadvertently perpetuate regressive social norms or stereotypes.
This legal development underscores the broader societal and legal challenges surrounding issues of gender, autonomy, and individual rights. The Supreme Court’s proactive intervention in this case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values and protecting the rights of individuals, especially vulnerable segments of the population such as adolescents.
As the proceedings unfold, the case will likely prompt a more extensive discussion on the boundaries of judicial commentary, especially when it comes to matters concerning personal autonomy, gender equality, and societal expectations. The outcome of this legal scrutiny could have far-reaching implications not only for this specific case but also for the broader discourse on the intersection of legal judgments and societal norms in the Indian context.
