A judgment of the Court cannot contain the Judge’s personal opinions on various subjects, the Bench said.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Calcutta High Court verdict that had called for adolescent girls to “control” their sexual urges instead of “giving in to two minutes of pleasure”. [In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent].
Here are the four key takeaways from the judgment by the Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Avoid personal opinions in judgments
The Bench, while making it clear that judgments must be clear and in a simple language, observed,
“No doubt, the Court can always comment upon the conduct of the parties. However, the findings regarding the conduct of the parties must be confined only to such conduct which has a bearing on the decision-making. A judgment of the Court cannot contain the Judge’s personal opinions on various subjects.”
Decide case, do not preach
In this regard, the Bench said,
“The Judge has to decide a case and not preach. The judgment cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material. A judgment must be in simple language and should not be verbose. Brevity is the hallmark of quality judgment. We must remember that judgment is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature. However, we find that the impugned judgment contains personal opinion of the Judges advice to the younger generation and advice to the legislature.”
Failure of State machinery and family of girl
The Bench lamented the fact that survivors in child sexual assault cases are often abandoned. Further, in the present case, the girl had no option but to live with the accused.
“Unfortunately, in our society, due to whatever reasons, we find that there are cases and cases where the parents of the victims of the offences under the POSCO Act abandon the victims. In such a case, it is the duty of the State to provide shelter, food, clothing, education opportunities, etc., to the victim of the offences as provided in law. Even the child born to such a victim needs to be taken care of in a similar manner by the State.”
It underscored that the State has to ensure survivors can stand on their own feet and lead dignified lives.
“That is precisely what Section 46 of the JJ Act provides. Sadly, in the present case, there is a complete failure of the State machinery. Nobody came to rescue the victim of the offence, and thus, for her survival, no option was left to her but to seek shelter with the accused.”
No grassroot level compliance of Section 19(6) of Juvenile Justice Act
The said sub-section of the JJ Act provides that the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police shall, within 24 hours, report cases of offences against minors to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and concerned sessions/special court.
The Supreme Court observed that the proviso is clearly practiced in breach.
“At the grassroot level, sub-section (6) of Section 19 is not being implemented. Even if the information is provided to the CWC, the children in need of care and protection are not being produced before the CWC. Even if the information is given under sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the POCSO Act, the CWCs are not taking any action”.
It was made clear that non-compliance violates the affected juvenile’s fundamental right to a life with dignity.
“It is the responsibility of the State to take care of helpless victims of such heinous offences…The minor child, who is the victim of the offences under the POCSO Act, is also deprived of the fundamental right to live a dignified and healthy life. The same is the case of the child born to the victim as a result of the offence…Compliance with Section 19(6) is of vital importance. Non-compliance thereof will lead to a violation of Article 21.”
On this aspect, the law secretaries of all states and union territories were directed to hold meetings and frame guidelines if needed, to enforce the sub-section.
