New Delhi: In a landmark judgment invoking extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court on Friday freed a man convicted of sexual relations with a minor, ruling that further punishment would not serve the cause of justice given the unique circumstances of the case.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a nuanced verdict, noting that the victim—now the man’s wife—did not view the act as a crime, and had suffered more from the legal fallout than from the act itself.
“Society Judged Her, System Failed Her”
The apex court emphasized the emotional bond between the victim and the accused, highlighting that they now live together with their child in West Bengal.
“The victim didn’t treat this as a heinous crime. Society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her family abandoned her,” the court said.
“What she had to face as a consequence was not just the act, but the police, the legal system, and the constant battle to save the accused from punishment.”
The case, the court noted, underscored significant gaps in the legal system’s treatment of adolescent relationships and victims’ autonomy.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to 2018, when the girl, then 14 years old, went missing and was later found to have married a 25-year-old man.
A complaint by her family led to the man’s conviction under the POCSO Act and a 20-year prison sentence by a local court.
In 2023, the Calcutta High Court controversially acquitted the man, making contentious remarks about adolescent sexuality and societal morality.
The High Court’s view drew severe public backlash and prompted Supreme Court intervention.
Supreme Court’s Review and Decision
In August 2024, the Supreme Court reinstated the man’s conviction, reversing the High Court’s decision but withheld sentencing, ordering the West Bengal government to form an expert panel to assess the victim’s current psychological and social well-being.
The panel—comprising psychologists and child welfare experts—submitted a report noting the victim’s emotional attachment to the accused and her strong sense of family loyalty.
Based on the findings, the court held that sentencing the man now would harm the victim more and disrupt a family unit that has since formed.
Use of Article 142: “Complete Justice”
The court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers it to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any case before it.
“She did not have the opportunity to make an informed choice earlier. The system failed her at multiple levels,” the bench remarked.
By using Article 142, the court has exempted the accused from serving the prison term, despite upholding his conviction.
Broader Implications and Legal Commentary
This verdict is poised to reignite national discourse on:
The implementation of the POCSO Act, especially in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships.
The limitations of the legal system in protecting vulnerable minors from both exploitation and post-crisis trauma.
The need for policy updates to reflect socio-cultural realities, especially where victims wish to reclaim their agency and rebuild their lives.
The case is now being seen as an “eye-opener”, in the court’s own words, with potential to inform future reforms in juvenile and sexual offense jurisprudence.
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution
What is Article 142?
Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or make any order necessary for doing “complete justice” in any matter pending before it. This unique provision enables the apex court to transcend limitations posed by statutory laws when equity and justice demand an extraordinary remedy.
Key Features:
It is a plenary power vested only in the Supreme Court.
It ensures the primacy of justice over procedural limitations.
It allows the court to fashion remedies that may not exist in statute.
Notable Previous Invocations:
Union Carbide case (Bhopal Gas Tragedy): To ensure relief and compensation.
Ayodhya land dispute: To effect a settlement beyond strict legal boundaries.
In the Current Case:
By invoking Article 142, the court upheld the man’s conviction but suspended his sentence, balancing legal integrity with human complexity. This reflects how Article 142 can help align the rigid letter of the law with the broader spirit of justice.
Comparative Look: POCSO Act Precedents and Challenges
Overview of POCSO:
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, is a stringent law intended to protect minors from sexual abuse. It criminalizes all sexual activity with persons below 18, irrespective of consent.
Precedent Tensions:
In State v. XYZ (Delhi High Court), a consensual relationship between teens resulted in conviction due to strict statutory interpretation.
In Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court read down the marital rape exception for minors.
Challenges Revealed:
Zero tolerance framework clashes with consensual adolescent relationships.
The act does not differentiate between exploitation and romantic relationships, causing punitive outcomes even where the minor asserts autonomy.
Judicial discretion is constrained, often leaving no room for socio-cultural nuance.
Current Judgment’s Implication:
This Supreme Court ruling does not dilute the statute but introduces a compassionate jurisprudential lens. It recognizes that applying the law uniformly may victimize those it intends to protect—especially in emotionally bonded relationships.
