A Paradigm Shift in Justice: Supreme Court Prioritizes Victim Welfare Over Punishment in Adolescent POCSO Case

The Supreme Court of India in a landmark decision dated May 23, 2025, in the case of In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (Suo Motu WP (C) No. 3 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024), took an extraordinary step by choosing not to sentence a convicted Accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Citing the “complete failure of our society and our legal system” and the paramount need to ensure the well-being of the Victim and her child, the Court invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “substantial justice.”

The judgment, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, highlights the tragic circumstances of a young girl who, after being Victimized, was failed by the very systems designed to protect her, ultimately leading to a situation where her and her child’s welfare became intertwined with that of the Accused.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an appeal by the State of West Bengal against a Calcutta High Court order dated October 18, 2023. The High Court had controversially set aside the conviction of an Accused for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Victim was 14 years old at the time of the incident in May 2018. She left her home and was later found to have been enticed by the Accused. A female child was subsequently born to the Victim, with the Accused being the biological father.

The Special Court under the POCSO Act had convicted the Accused, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence. However, the High Court, noting that the Victim (now an adult) was residing with the Accused and their child and had been disowned by her mother, quashed the conviction, purportedly exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Supreme Court, in an earlier judgment dated August 20, 2024, had set aside the High Court’s order, restoring the conviction but postponing sentencing. The Apex Court initiated a Suo Motu Writ Petition due to objectionable observations in the High Court’s judgment and appointed Senior Advocates Ms. Madhavi Divan and Ms. Liz Mathew as amicus curiae.

Systemic Failures and the Victim’s Plight

The Supreme Court’s judgment meticulously details the “systemic failure of the State to protect the Victim.” It noted:

• Abandonment by Family:The Victim’s parents completely abandoned her, leaving her with no support system.
• Lack of Informed Choice:At 14 or 15, the Victim was not in a position to make an informed choice about her future and had no option but to seek shelter with the Accused.
• Insufficient State Action: The State did not comply with the legal requirements outlined in the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) to ensure the Victim’s well-being. In particular, the police did not strictly enforce Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, which stipulates that the Child Welfare Committee must be notified.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights:The failure to provide aid amounted to a violation of the Victim’s fundamental right to a dignified and healthy life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A committee of experts appointed by the Supreme Court submitted preliminary and final reports, which painted a grim picture. The reports highlighted:

• The Victim’s immense struggle with the legal system to secure the Accused’s release.
• The financial and emotional distress caused to the family.
• The Victim’s desire to continue residing with the Accused for the sake of their child’s upbringing.
• The “collective failure of the systems that are there to protect a girl child,” including failures of Child Protection Committees, inadequate implementation of welfare schemes, inaction by Child Welfare Officers, lack of free legal aid, insufficient counsellors, stigmatization, and irregularities in investigations.
• The shocking financial exploitation of the Victim by touts and lawyers, where she incurred debts of over Rs. 2 lakhs to defend the Accused.

The committee concluded that “it was not the legal crime which caused trauma on the Victim, rather it was the legal battle which ensued consequent to the crime that is taking a toll on the Victim.”

Key Submissions Before the Supreme Court

Before arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court considered various submissions:

• State of West Bengal:The State Government, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, had initially appealed the High Court’s acquittal of the Accused. However, during the proceedings, the counsel for the State took a “fair stand,” assisting the Court as an Officer of the Court, particularly in light of the committee reports and the focus on the Victim’s welfare.
• The Accused and The Victim:The Court noted that the Accused and the Victim (who had attained majority) were “on the same page and want to continue their cohabitation.” The reports from the expert committee strongly reflected the Victim’s fervent desire for the Accused’s liberty and the preservation of their family unit, which formed the core of their implicit plea to the Court.
• Amicus Curiae (Ms. Madhavi Divan and Ms. Liz Mathew):The learned amicus curiae made extensive and crucial submissions, particularly on the complex issue of sentencing and the welfare of the Victim and her child. Their key arguments included:
• Prioritizing Victim’s Welfare in Sentencing:They emphasized that the sentencing of the Accused must be viewed in light of the committee’s findings and the Victim’s expressed wish to continue residing with the Accused.
• Alternatives for Sentencing:
  • Article 142 of the Constitution:The amicus curiae suggested that the Court could exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to remit, reduce, or suspend the sentence to do “complete justice,” considering the welfare of the Victim and her child. They cited precedents where such powers were used in POCSO cases.
  • Remission under CrPC:Although the State has the authority to reduce the sentence under Section 432 of the CrPC, the Court determined that using its powers under Article 142 to limit the sentence to the time already served would better serve the interests of complete justice.
  • High Court’s Power to Quash (Section 482 CrPC):They discussed the power of High Courts to quash criminal proceedings in POCSO cases, especially those involving adolescent consensual relationships where strict application of the law might not serve justice. They highlighted varying interpretations by different High Courts and stressed the need to identify relevant factors (like informed consent, impact on Victim) for High Courts to consider, to ensure consistency.
• Underlying Rationale for Leniency:The amicus curiae argued that the approach should aim to prevent the disruption of an existing family unit, mitigate further hardship to the Victim and her child, and balance strict statutory mandates with principles of proportionality and complete justice.
• Supplementary Directions:They also sought directions for the continuation of State support for the Victim’s education and the child’s upbringing, and for the local Child Welfare Committee to apprise the Victim of her marital rights.

The Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Decision on Sentencing

Faced with this unique and distressing situation, and considering the detailed submissions, the Supreme Court grappled with the issue of sentencing. While acknowledging that the law mandated a minimum punishment, the Court observed, “if we send the Accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the Victim herself.”

The Court stated, “In this case, the society, the family of the Victim and the legal system have done enough injustice to the Victim. She has been subjected to enough trauma and agony. We do not want to add to the injustice done to the Victim by sending her husband to jail.”

Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court decided that though the Accused stands convicted, he would not undergo any sentence. The Court emphasized that this case “is not going to be a precedent and should not be a precedent,” describing it as an “illustration of the complete failure of our society and our legal system.”

Directives for Rehabilitation and Systemic Reform

The Supreme Court issued directives to the State of West Bengal to act as a “true guardian” of the Victim and her child:

1. Shelter:Provide better shelter to the Victim and her family.
2. Victim’s Education:Bear the entire expenditure of the Victim’s education up to the 10th standard and, if she desires, a degree course. Offer vocational training after her 10th standard.
3. Child’s Education:Bear the entire expenditure of the child’s education up to the 10th standard in a good school.
4. Debt Relief:Endeavour to assist in securing the debts incurred by the Victim as a one-time measure, possibly with the help of NGOs or public-spirited citizens.

The State has already taken some steps, including enrolling the Victim in school, enrolling her child in an Anganwadi Centre, and providing financial assistance under the Mission Vatsalya scheme.

The Court further impleaded the Union of India through the Ministry of Women and Child Development to address broader systemic issues. It directed the Ministry to establish a committee of experts to review the recommendations made by the amicus curiae, which include:

1. Adolescent Well-being and Comprehensive Sexuality Education:Advocating for systematic policy reforms, improved teacher training, and an inclusive curriculum for comprehensive sex education.
2. Data Collection Mechanism:Establishing a structured data collection mechanism at the state level for real-time accountability, tracking POCSO cases, child marriage monitoring, and improving institutional responsiveness.

To ensure strict implementation of Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the JJ Act, the Court instructed the Registry to forward copies of its judgments to all States and Union Territories, directing them to consider framing rules under Section 46 of the JJ Act which pertains to the aftercare of children who are leaving institutional care.

Conclusion: A Call for Compassion and Accountability

The Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents is a profound statement on the limitations of a purely punitive approach to justice, especially in cases involving vulnerable individuals failed by the system. By prioritizing the Victim’s current well-being and future, even at the cost of not imposing a legally mandated sentence on the convicted, the Court has underscored the judiciary’s role in delivering “complete justice” in its truest sense.

Saharsh Singh,

Intern,

IV Year, National Law Institute University, Bhopal

Editor’s Comments

This decision serves as a stark reminder of the State’s constitutional obligations as a welfare state and a call for deep introspection and reform within the legal and social support systems meant to protect children. It highlights the urgent need for a more empathetic, rehabilitative, and victim-centric approach, particularly in the complex landscape of adolescent relationships and the application of laws like POCSO. The case also opens up a crucial dialogue on the need for comprehensive sexuality education and robust child protection mechanisms to prevent such tragedies from recurring. What is most important is that the Supreme Court using its special powers did long-term justice for the Victim as well as the child which is what will help the Victim in new beginnings and ultimately help the child out.

Sushila Ram Varma

Advocate & Chief Consultant

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “Senior Citizens: Legal Rights Support System” can be viewed at the link below: https://youtu.be/gWns2AXAAP8?si=oGVJ3iifmKdef6xF