The Supreme Court of India, taking suo motu cognisance of a Calcutta High Court judgment that had directed adolescent girls to "control their sexual urges," set aside the High Court's verdict in Probhat Purkait @ Provat v. State of West Bengal on 7 December 2023. A Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra directed all High Courts to refrain from incorporating personal moral commentary, ideological views, or unsolicited advice in judicial pronouncements.
Background
The Calcutta High Court had acquitted the accused in a case involving charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While setting aside the trial court's conviction, the High Court's judgment went beyond the legal analysis of the evidence and included extensive commentary on adolescent sexuality. Among other observations, the High Court had advised "female adolescents" to exercise restraint over their "sexual urges" and made observations characterising young women as "losers" in sexual encounters.
The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the Calcutta High Court judgment and listed the matter for urgent hearing, expressing concern about the content and tenor of the judicial observations.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court addressed both the substantive acquittal and the propriety of the High Court's observations:
Moral sermons impermissible: The Court held that judges are not expected to express their personal views or preach morality through judicial orders. Judgments must confine themselves to the legal and factual questions before the Court and refrain from offering unsolicited advice to litigants or the general public on matters of personal conduct.
Right to privacy engaged: The Bench observed that judicial commentary on an individual's sexual conduct or preferences implicates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, as recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Courts must respect the decisional autonomy of individuals in matters of personal intimacy.
Judgment writing discipline: The Court directed all High Courts to ensure that judgments do not contain personal opinions of judges on subjects unrelated to the legal questions being decided. The directive was framed as a general guideline for judicial conduct applicable to all courts.
High Court judgment set aside: The Calcutta High Court's judgment was set aside in its entirety, with the matter being remitted for fresh consideration on merits without the extraneous moral commentary.
Implications for Practitioners
This order reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in judgment writing and establishes a clear boundary between adjudication and personal commentary. Defence counsel in criminal matters — particularly POCSO cases — should note that appellate courts are bound to decide on the evidence and law, and observations that stray into moral judgment of the victim or the accused may themselves become grounds for further appeal.
For practitioners appearing before High Courts, the Supreme Court's directive provides a basis for seeking expunction of inappropriate observations from judicial orders. The order also signals the Supreme Court's willingness to take suo motu notice of problematic judicial language, creating an additional accountability mechanism for High Court judges.
The ruling is particularly significant in the context of POCSO jurisprudence, where judicial observations about the victim's conduct have periodically drawn criticism for reinforcing harmful stereotypes and deterring reporting.