Judge Has To Decide, Not Preach; Judgment Shouldn't Contain Judge's Personal Opinions : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 20) set aside the judgment dated October 18, 2023 of the Calcutta High Court where it made controversial remarks regarding the sexual behaviour of adolescents.

In the suo moto case titled 'In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents', a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the High Court's judgment and expressed disapproval of its remarks.

The Court said: "A judgment of the Court cannot contain the Judge's personal opinions on various subjects. Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Court by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general. 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."

The bench observed that the observations made by the High Court are 'utterly irrelevant' for deciding the controversy and are 'shocking'.

The Supreme Court stated that the judgment of the courts while dealing with an order of conviction in appeal is expected to contain:

(i) a concise statement of the facts of the case,

(ii) the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, if any,

(iii) the submissions made by the parties,

(iv) the analysis based on the reappreciation of evidence, and

(v) the reasons for either confirming the guilt of the accused or for acquitting the accused.

The Court added: "The appellate court must scan through the evidence, both oral and documentary, and reappreciate it."

The Court pointed out that after reappreciating the evidence, the appellate court must: "record reasons for either accepting the evidence of the prosecution or for disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution. The Court must record reasons for deciding whether the charges against the accused have been proved."

It added: " In a given case, if the conviction is confirmed, the Court will have to deal with the legality and adequacy of the sentence. In such a case, there must be a finding recorded on the legality and adequacy of the sentence with reasons."

The court said that the ultimate object of writing a judgment is to ensure 'that both parties before the court know why the case is decided in their favour or against them'. It therefore said: "Therefore, judgment must be in a simple language. The conclusions recorded by the Court in the judgment on legal or factual issues must be supported by cogent reasons".

It pointed out that courts can always comment upon the conduct of the parties. But added a caveat that the findings in this regard must be confined to the conduct which has a 'bearing on the decision-making'.

Regarding the High Court's observations, the Supreme Court said :

"The observations are utterly irrelevant for deciding the controversy. To say the least, these observations are shocking, which will ex-facie invite a finding of perversity."

Background

The High Court, while overturning the conviction of a 25-year-old man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO), made sweeping observations on the sexual behaviour of adolescents, particularly teenage girls.

In the impugned judgment, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 482 (inherent powers to secure the ends of justice) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside an impugned judgement and order of conviction against the appellant who had been sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on charges of kidnapping of a minor under Indian Penal Code and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act.

It noted that the lack of recognition of consensual sexual behaviour of older adolescents has resulted in their automatic criminalisation, as well as "a conflation of consensual acts with non-consensual acts".

The High Court took into account the fact that the victim married the convict and that a child was born out of the relationship.

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Chitta Ranjan Dash and Partha Sarathi Sen laid down a set of duties to be followed by adolescent boys and girls :

“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.

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 & privacy, and right to autonomy of her body.”

The bench further noted that “sex in adolescents is normal but sexual urge or arousal of such urge is dependent on some action by the individual, may be a man or woman. Therefore, sexual urge is not at all normal and normative.”

It emphasised the absence of provisions in the POCSO Act to address consensual, non-exploitative relationships between adolescents aged 16-18.

These remarks led the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance, highlighting that the observations were not only "highly objectionable" but also "completely unwarranted," as they violated the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Case Details: In Re: Right to Privacy Of Adolescents, Suo Moto WP(C) No. 3 of 2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment