IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS
Discusses interpretation of POCSO, JJ Act, CrPC, IPC, and constitutional provisions regarding victim rights and state responsibility.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 778
Decision Date: 23-05-2025
List of Laws
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India, 1949; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment refers to Sections 363 and 366 IPC, noting the High Court acquitted the accused for offences punishable under these sections. The Supreme Court confirmed this acquittal. Section 376 IPC is discussed in relation to clause (n) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). The Special Court convicted the accused under these provisions, but the High Court set aside the conviction. The Supreme Court restored the Special Court's verdict regarding these provisions of Section 376.
- Constitution of India, 1949: Article 21 is discussed in relation to the right to a dignified life for victims of offences under the POCSO Act and the children born to them. The judgment states that failure to provide aid to victim children will amount to a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. Article 226 is mentioned as the High Court purported to exercise its jurisdiction under this Article. Article 142 is discussed as the Supreme Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under this article to hold that the accused will not undergo sentence. The judgment refers to the power and discretion under Article 142(1) and states that its exercise is valid as per the Constitution.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 432 CrPC (Section 473 BNSS) is mentioned as the amici curiae submitted that the court can consider remitting the sentence of the accused by the State of West Bengal under this section. Section 482 CrPC is discussed in relation to the High Court's plenary powers to quash the order of conviction. The judgment refers to various decisions holding that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash a prosecution on grounds of settlement or consent. The amici curiae also submitted that the power of the High Court to quash ongoing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC needs to be examined. Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are mentioned as the amici curiae submitted that it will be pertinent to determine whether the victim has given 'informed consent' by examining the statements given by the victim under these sections.
- The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: The judgment refers to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, noting the Special Judge convicted the accused for offences punishable under this section. The High Court set aside this conviction, but the Supreme Court restored the Special Court's verdict. Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act is discussed, stating that the police must strictly implement it, and non-compliance will lead to a violation of Article 21. The judgment also highlights the inadequate implementation of the POCSO Act.
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: The judgment refers to the JJ Act in relation to taking care of children and rehabilitating them, stating that all provisions are consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 46 of the JJ Act is mentioned, stating that it provides for the State to ensure that the victim of the offence can stand on his/her legs and think of leading a dignified life. The issue of framing Rules by the States to give effect to the provisions of Section 46 of the JJ Act is also to be considered.
- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is mentioned. The accused was charged with the offence punishable under this section. However, the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act found that there was no evidence of marriage between the victim and the accused, and the charge under Section 9 of the 2006 Act was held as not substantiated.
🔒 For Members Only