Supreme Court Condemns High Court's 'Control Sexual Urges' Remark, Questions Judicial Principles

In a sharp rebuke, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the Calcutta High Court's directive for adolescent girls to "control" their sexual urges, deeming it as sending "absolutely wrong signals." The comments were made during the hearing of a suo motu case initiated in response to the controversial ruling [In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents].

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, not only criticized the content of the High Court order but also raised concerns about the application of judges' inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to make such observations. The Supreme Court remarked, "The order sends wrong signals. What kind of principles the judges are applying under Section 482."

The Calcutta High Court had triggered controversy with its ruling, advocating for adolescent girls to exercise control over their sexual urges. The court expressed reservations about the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), calling for the decriminalization of consensual sexual acts involving adolescents above 16 years and endorsing comprehensive rights-based sexual education.

The ruling faced backlash for proposing a 'duty/obligation based approach' for teenagers, suggesting distinct duties for adolescent females and males. While adolescent females were advised to "control sexual urge/urges," adolescent boys were urged to respect women and their rights.

The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the order in December 2023, describing it as sweeping, objectionable, irrelevant, preachy, and unwarranted. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan was appointed as amicus curiae in the matter, and the Court decided to hear both the suo motu case and the State's appeal against the High Court's verdict together.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the State of West Bengal, informed the Court that the State has filed an appeal against the High Court's ruling, emphasizing that the State government also deemed the observations as "wrong." The Supreme Court affirmed its commitment to address the issue, signaling a comprehensive examination of the controversial remarks.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News writer, MIT ADT University