We Always Speak About Victims, Why Not Teach The Boys? Bombay High Court While Hearing Badlapur School Sexual Assault Case

While hearing a suo motu PIL regarding the alleged sexual assault of two minor kindergarten girls in a school at Badlapur in Thane, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday orally called for "teaching boys the difference between right and wrong" as well as sensitising them about respecting women at a young age.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan asked advocate general Birendra Saraf appearing for the State of Maharashtra to submit a few names of persons who can constitute a committee which can recommend the manner of preventing such acts in schools and other places.

Noting that committee should work on gender sensitising boys, Justice Mohite Dere further orally remarked,

"We always speak about the victims. Why don't we tell the boys what's right and what's wrong. You need to tell the boys what they shouldn't do. Your committee can work on that aspect too. You need to change the mindset of the boys when they are young. Teach them to respect the other gender, respect women, gender sensitisation etc. We had moral science classes. Education department needs to step in here and inculcate all these things in boys when they are young". 

Meanwhile Justice Chavan orally said that while until children are taught at home about equality "nothing will happen". He remarked "we still work with that male dominance, male chauvinism". 

The judge further said,

"Nothing will happen if equality isn't taught. If proper awareness isn't done no amount of laws will help. And worst is the use of social media. There was a Marathi movie titled "7 che aat, gharat" (Be in home before 7PM) why such movies for girls alone? Why not for boys? Why can't boys be told to be home early?"

During the hearing Saraf informed the bench that a committee had been appointed comprising NGOs, Commissioner of Schools, Education Commissioner and representatives of Women and Child Department, etc. to look into the provisions of law and its implementation. Saraf added that a government resolution (GR) had been passed to this effect on August 23.

At this stage Justice Mohite Dere orally remarked that the GR only mentioned girls adding that the court was "concerned about everyone" as the POCSO Act refers to the term child which includes boys.  

The judge thereafter orally said, "Why can't you have a committee comprising a retired Judge, retired IPS officer, retired educator and somebody from Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and somebody from PTAs so that people from all walks of life can come out with their experiences. We want a consolidated committee which can come up with some comprehensive recommendations on how such acts can be curbed at schools etc".

Saraf said there was no difficulty in accepting this suggestion and the officers would be instructed accordingly.  

Then asking Saraf to submit a few names for the constitution of the committee, the high court orally remarked that even if an IPS officer or any one else in part of the panel, the "ground reality doesn't change" as people are not aware of the law. The court orally added that while things are in place "implementation and sensitisation" was not being done. 

The high court further orally observed that the problem pertained to "percolation of the law" and while schemes looked "good on paper" however in "reality people don't know about the law". 

The high court thereafter said that reference of the GR would have to be changed to ensure that the term child is mentioned instead of "girls", while orally noting that there were many cases where boys were also assaulted. Asking Saraf to provide the names of the proposed members of the committee the high court listed the matter on September 3.  

Lapses In Initial Probe By Badlapur Police

At the outset, the high court after taking note of a document on the steps taken in the investigation orally remarked, "If you see from the chart, it shows the procedure wasn't followed. We are speaking about Badlapur Police. The mandate of the law is not followed. Badlapur Police attempted to record the victim girl's statements at the police station. There is complete non-compliance of the mandate. Asking the victim and her parents to come to the police station for statement recording is completely insensitive and against the law". 

Meanwhile Saraf mentioned that three officers had been suspended. When the court enquired about the stage of the probe, Saraf said that test identification parade had been completed. 

At this stage J Chavan orally asked, "Was he (accused) the only male to clean the toilets? Had he worked with management before? Did he had any acquaintance ? What about the accused's antecedents?".

To this Saraf submitted that the accused had worked as a watchman earlier and his parents and cousins are working in the same school. Saraf added that the accused had been married thrice and his wive's statements are also being recorded. Saraf further informed the bench that CCTV footage had been preserved. 

Pointing to Rule 3 under the POCSO Act, Justice Mohite Dere orally said, "There must be a reporting helpline or child help line... Law also provides for background check of persons working in schools etc. Was all this done?...Periodical background check is done or not? Problem is the implementation of the laws". Saraf said that the school had not done the same. 

Noting that there were several serious lapses, Justice Chavan asked Saraf if the victim was examined by a woman doctor. To this Saraf said that, "They had more than one examination". He further said that the concerned teacher had not been added as an accused because she had "immediately informed the principal" and only the school principal had been made an accused. 

To this, the judges orally said that the "class teacher sent the girls to the washroom with a male" questioning whether this was an "illegal omission" falling under Section 16 of the POCSO Act. 

Questioning the teacher's duty in the matter, J Mohite-Dere orally asked, "Isn't it the duty of the teacher? Isn't it a legal obligation? A duty is cast on them to report to the police about the incident". When Saraf said that as per the teachers they had informed the principal, the judge orally remarked, "...law says anyone comes to know they must report directly to the police. It's not as if your work is done only by reporting to your higher authority". 

During the hearing, Justice Mohite-Dere further orally said that in POCSO, rape and sexual harassment cases, it should be ensured that Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports are submitted immediately and that there should not be any delays. Saraf at this stage submitted that more people had been recruited or FSL work.

Media Should Report Rape Cases Responsibly And Not For TRPs

While hearing the case, Justice Chavan asked Saraf about the steps taken by the State of Maharashtra to spread awareness and publicise the law through the media and at the same time also expressed displeasure over the manner in which the media covered such cases.

The bench observed, "Media people should also read section 20 and 23 of the Act. Media must ensure that it doesn't breach section 23 of the POCSO". We are pained to see names of the school, girls etc on social media. The media must be sensitive while covering such cases.'

When the family's counsel Sanket Garud informed the bench of certain media channels had "broadcasting the telephonic conversation of the family on their TV Channels, without their consent" the judges voice caution for media houses.

"We will not hesitate in issuing suo motu contempt proceedings against media houses if they proceed to air or telecast any interview or visuals of the victim or her family on their channels. Such cases are a sensitive issue and are not meant for TRPs. Please understand this," the bench underscored.

The high court further noted that some social media sites had named the school where the alleged incident had taken place. Noting that this was against POCSO provisions the court said that, "We will produce entire section 23 in our order so even the Media knows about its duty". The court further enquired if the police had invoked Section 23 POCSO against the media channels for disclosing the identity of the victim or her family.

Further, the judges made it clear to the government that there must be a lady public prosecutor in the case to assist the State-appointed special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam. "She will be there with the girls and help them...There must be sensitisation for hospitals also. We don't want too many doctors examining the child. There can be a lady doctor as child will be more comfortable with a lady doctor."

The court also orally asked the advocate general to ensure that "every investigation detail" is told to the victims' family and kept the matter for further hearing on September 3.

Case Title: Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation No. of 2024