Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, May 23: In a rare and emotional ruling, the Supreme Court of India has invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to withhold sentencing in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing deeply exceptional personal and emotional circumstances.
The case involves a man who was 24 years old at the time of the offence and was later convicted for engaging in a sexual relationship with a minor girl. Years later, he married the same girl—now an adult—and the couple currently lives together with their child.
A bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that while the act remains a crime in the eyes of law, the victim herself does not perceive it as such. Instead, it was the aftermath—the legal process, societal stigma, and abandonment by her own family—that inflicted lasting trauma.
The Court remarked, “The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her.” The statement has resonated across the legal community and social sectors as a powerful critique of institutional and social responses to sensitive cases involving minors and consensual relationships.
In a bold move, the Court restored the man’s conviction, overturning a controversial 2023 Calcutta High Court judgment that had not only acquitted the man but made derogatory comments about adolescent girls and their “moral obligations”. That ruling drew widespread criticism for its patriarchal tone and lack of sensitivity.
Instead of rushing to impose a sentence, the Supreme Court ordered the West Bengal government to set up an expert committee. Comprising clinical psychologists, social scientists, and a child welfare officer, the panel evaluated the victim’s emotional and social well-being, and ensured she was aware of her rights and support systems.
The committee’s sealed report, submitted earlier this year, revealed that the victim remains emotionally attached to the accused and is “very possessive” about her family life. It also highlighted her lack of access to informed choices in her earlier years and recommended financial support and vocational training as she continues her education.
The apex court concluded that the case called for invoking Article 142 to do “complete justice”, given the extraordinary human dimensions involved. It emphasized that punishment, in this instance, would not serve the cause of justice, but instead disrupt a fragile family unit already marred by social and systemic neglect.
“She did not have the opportunity to make an informed choice earlier. The system failed her at multiple levels,” the bench observed.
Legal experts believe this ruling could serve as a landmark precedent in how Indian courts approach POCSO cases involving emotional complexity, consent ambiguity, and post-facto family dynamics. The case underscores the need for a more nuanced, victim-centric approach in the justice system—especially in scenarios where legal interpretations clash with lived realities.
As India continues to grapple with questions of legal maturity, consent, and social rehabilitation, this judgment offers a rare blend of compassion, law, and introspection—a reminder that justice is not always black and white.