“Breaking Chains of Stigma – Supreme Court Challenges Regressive Views on Adolescent Rights”

In a startling revelation of regressive thinking within the judiciary, the Supreme Court recently criticized a judgement by the Calcutta High Court, labeling its observations as “highly objectionable and unwarranted.” The Calcutta High Court, in its October 18th ruling, had advised adolescent girls to “control sexual urges” and suggested that adolescent boys should train themselves to respect women. This article delves into the details of the case, the Supreme Court’s response, and the broader implications on the rights and dignity of adolescents.The controversy stems from a case where a boy, convicted for sexual assault, appealed against his 20-year sentence. Shockingly, the Calcutta High Court not only acquitted the boy but also issued problematic remarks regarding the conduct of adolescent girls and boys. The court suggested that girls should “control sexual urges” and not succumb to “two minutes of pleasure,” while boys should “train their minds to respect women.”

The controversy stems from a case where a boy, convicted for sexual assault, appealed against his 20-year sentence. Shockingly, the Calcutta High Court not only acquitted the boy but also issued problematic remarks regarding the conduct of adolescent girls and boys. The court suggested that girls should “control sexual urges” and not succumb to “two minutes of pleasure,” while boys should “train their minds to respect women.”

This divisive narrative perpetuates harmful stereotypes and raises serious questions about the judiciary’s understanding of consent, gender equality, and the rights of adolescents.

The Supreme Court, upon taking suo motu cognizance of the high court’s judgement, expressed strong disapproval. Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal highlighted that judges are not expected to express personal views or preach while delivering judgements. The Supreme Court termed the observations as a clear violation of the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for a more objective and rights-based approach.

The high court’s remarks, especially the assertion that adolescent girls are “losers” if they engage in consensual sexual activity, raise serious concerns about the understanding of bodily autonomy and personal choice. The court’s focus on controlling sexual urges, instead of fostering a culture of consent and understanding, reflects a deeply entrenched patriarchal mindset.

Additionally, the court’s expectation for boys to “train their minds” to respect women implies that respect is not an inherent value but something that needs to be instilled. This reinforces harmful gender norms and sidesteps the broader issue of fostering a society that inherently values and respects the dignity of all individuals.

The Supreme Court, recognizing the gravity of the situation, took proactive measures by appointing senior advocate Madhavi Divan as amicus curiae to assist the court. This move reflects the judiciary’s commitment to rectifying prejudiced statements and ensuring a fair, rights-based legal system.

The court’s decision to issue notices to the state governments and others involved underlines the urgency of addressing such matters promptly. It also signals a broader commitment to upholding constitutional values and protecting the rights of every citizen, especially vulnerable groups like adolescents.

The underlying case involves a delicate balance between justice, societal norms, and the evolving understanding of consensual relationships. The high court’s decision to set aside the conviction based on the perception of a “non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship between two consenting adolescents” brings to the forefront the need for nuanced legal approaches in such cases.

However, the Supreme Court’s intervention serves as a corrective measure, preventing the perpetuation of harmful narratives that can adversely impact societal attitudes and reinforce stereotypes.

The controversy surrounding this case extends beyond legal ramifications. It sparks a crucial conversation about the role of the judiciary in shaping societal norms and values. The statements made by the Calcutta High Court, if left unchallenged, could contribute to a culture that victimizes and stigmatizes adolescents based on regressive notions of morality.

As the Supreme Court gears up to delve into the intricacies of this case, it becomes imperative for the judiciary to exercise prudence in its pronouncements. Beyond the legal nuances, the court’s decision will influence societal attitudes and perceptions, particularly concerning the rights and dignity of adolescents.

This case serves as a stark reminder that the judiciary’s role goes beyond the courtroom – it extends to shaping a just, equitable, and progressive society. The Supreme Court’s rebuke of the Calcutta High Court’s remarks is a step in the right direction, urging the legal fraternity to be vigilant and accountable in safeguarding the principles of justice, equality, and individual rights. As the proceedings unfold, the nation watches, hoping for a verdict that not only corrects legal anomalies but also contributes to fostering a more enlightened and inclusive society.

Visit arjasriaknth.in for more insights