The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on August 16, 2024, reversed a Calcutta High Court decision that had contained problematic observations and advisories regarding adolescent sexuality. A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that courts are constitutionally prohibited from engaging in moral policing and that the privacy of adolescents must be protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background
The matter originated from a Calcutta High Court judgment that, while dealing with a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), had made wide-ranging observations regarding the conduct and lifestyle choices of adolescents. The High Court's judgment included advisories directed at young persons regarding their behaviour, relationships, and interaction with technology, going significantly beyond the facts and legal issues in the case before it.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the High Court's observations, noting that judicial pronouncements carrying gratuitous advisories on personal conduct have a chilling effect on the fundamental rights of the persons they address. The privacy of adolescents, as a subset of the broader right to privacy recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), warranted specific protection from judicial overreach as much as from executive or legislative action.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court set forth the following principles:
Impermissibility of moral policing by courts: The Bench held that courts of law adjudicating criminal matters must confine their observations and directions to the facts and legal issues arising in the case. Gratuitous moral advisories, particularly those directed at the lifestyle choices of adolescents or young adults, amount to judicial moral policing and are impermissible.
Adolescent privacy under Article 21: The right to privacy of adolescents and young persons, including privacy in personal relationships and lifestyle choices, is protected under Article 21. Courts must be particularly careful when dealing with cases involving minors to ensure that their judgments do not expose the private lives of young persons to public scrutiny.
Reversal of Calcutta HC observations: The Court directed that the impugned observations of the Calcutta High Court regarding adolescent conduct be expunged from the record. The direction was necessary, the Court held, because High Court observations carry persuasive authority and could be cited or relied upon in ways that undermine the privacy and dignity of young persons.
POCSO and judicial restraint: While recognising the critical importance of POCSO in protecting children from sexual exploitation, the Bench observed that the Act must be applied with sensitivity to the distinction between exploitation and consensual conduct among adolescents. Courts should not use POCSO proceedings as a platform for delivering general moral commentary.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment establishes an important boundary for judicial conduct in cases involving adolescents. Defence practitioners representing young persons in POCSO matters should invoke this decision when opposing any prosecution attempt to introduce moral commentary or lifestyle evidence that is irrelevant to the specific elements of the offence.
Trial courts and High Courts must exercise particular caution in drafting judgments involving minors. Observations that stray beyond the ratio of the case and venture into prescriptive commentary on adolescent behaviour are now expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court. Judicial training programmes may need to integrate this principle.
The judgment also carries significance for the ongoing policy debate around POCSO's application to consensual conduct between adolescents, an area where the strict liability framework of the Act intersects uneasily with the privacy rights that the Supreme Court has now explicitly extended to young persons.