A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India, in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, addressed the sensitive and complex intersection of criminal law, constitutional guarantees, and adolescent rights. The case arose from the conviction of an accused under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC, wherein the victim, a fourteen-year-old girl, had eloped with him, later cohabited, and given birth to a child. While the trial court convicted the accused, the High Court acquitted him by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, observing that both victim and accused wished to continue cohabitation. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, restored the conviction, but grappled with sentencing in light of the victim’s circumstances.

Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court, while upholding the conviction, directed that the accused would not undergo imprisonment to avoid further injustice to the victim, who was emotionally and economically dependent upon him. The Court held that strict statutory mandates must be balanced with the principles of proportionality and social justice, especially in cases involving adolescent relationships.

Significantly, the Court castigated the systemic failures of the State, Child Welfare Committees, and law enforcement in protecting the victim under POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court laid extensive guidelines for victim rehabilitation, adolescent well-being, and child protection, directing the State to provide financial, educational, and housing support. The judgment also highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive sexuality education, structured data collection for accountability, and reforms in handling adolescent cases under POCSO.

Keywords: Sentencing under POCSO, Article 142 jurisdiction, adolescent rights, rehabilitation of victim and child, failure of welfare state, informed choice, child protection, privacy of adolescents, proportionality in criminal law, restorative justice.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment emerges from the confluence of adolescent autonomy, statutory criminalisation of child sexual activity, and the role of the welfare state. At its core lies the tension between the rigid mandates of POCSO Act, 2012 and the lived reality of adolescents engaged in consensual romantic relationships. The present case exemplifies the paradox: a fourteen-year-old victim, having eloped and cohabited with the accused, bore his child and developed deep emotional dependence upon him. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC, imposing the minimum statutory sentence of twenty years. However, the Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction by invoking Article 226 Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, reasoning that the prosecutrix’s welfare lay in continuing cohabitation.

The Supreme Court, while restoring the conviction, faced a unique dilemma regarding sentencing. On one hand, statutory provisions mandated minimum punishment. On the other, the victim, abandoned by her family, stigmatized by society, and unsupported by State machinery, desperately sought preservation of her family unit. The Court, invoking Article 142 Constitution, harmonised law and justice by convicting the accused but exempting him from undergoing imprisonment, instead directing the State to provide financial, educational, and housing support.

This judgment is significant for its acknowledgment of systemic failure—of parents who abandoned the victim, of State officials who neglected statutory duties under Section 19(6) POCSO Act and Section 46 JJ Act, and of the legal system that exploited her financially. It underscores that adolescent privacy and autonomy cannot be overlooked in a welfare state. By highlighting gaps in implementation of child protection laws, absence of counselling, inadequate legal aid, and lack of comprehensive sexuality education, the Court laid down a roadmap for institutional reform.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The victim, a fourteen-year-old girl, eloped on 20 May 2018 with the accused, aged twenty-five, allegedly enticed with the aid of his sisters. The victim’s mother lodged an FIR on 29 May 2018. Subsequently, the victim was recovered, medically examined, and placed in a welfare home, but soon returned to the accused’s residence after her parents disowned her. The victim gave birth to a daughter in May 2021. The accused was arrested belatedly in December 2021, and charges were filed under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act, and Section 9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

The Special POCSO Court convicted the accused under Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC, sentencing him to twenty years RI, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 9 Child Marriage Act. On appeal, the Calcutta High Court (18 October 2023) set aside the conviction by invoking Article 226 Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, reasoning that both victim and accused wished to cohabit.

The Supreme Court, through judgment dated 20 August 2024, restored conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC but postponed sentencing, pending a Committee Report on victim rehabilitation. The Committee of Experts, including clinical psychologists and social scientists, submitted preliminary (16 October 2024) and final (28 January 2025) reports. The reports revealed systemic failures—non-functioning Child Protection Committees, inadequate implementation of welfare schemes like Kanyashree Prakalpa, lack of free legal aid, delays in investigation, and financial exploitation by lawyers and touts.

The final report highlighted that trauma arose not from the initial incident, but from the legal battle. The victim, emotionally and financially dependent, desired to continue family life with the accused. The Supreme Court, on 23 May 2025, held that while the accused stood convicted, sentencing would be waived under Article 142 Constitution, directing the State to bear educational and financial responsibility for the victim and her child.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC by exercising powers under Article 226 Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC in light of the victim’s willingness to continue cohabitation with the accused?

ii) Whether the statutory mandate of minimum sentence under Section 6 POCSO Act could be relaxed or waived in the peculiar facts of the case, considering the welfare and privacy rights of the adolescent victim?

iii) Whether the State and its instrumentalities failed to discharge their constitutional and statutory obligations under Article 21 Constitution, Section 19(6) POCSO Act, and Section 46 JJ Act, 2015 to protect and rehabilitate the victim and her child?

iv) Whether Article 142 Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to uphold conviction but waive imprisonment, balancing principles of proportionality and restorative justice?

v) What institutional reforms and guidelines are necessary for adolescent well-being, prevention of child exploitation, and effective implementation of POCSO Act and JJ Act?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsel for the State of West Bengal argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking Article 226 Constitution and Section 482 CrPC to set aside a conviction in a case of heinous sexual offence, contrary to settled precedent. Reliance was placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was held that heinous crimes such as rape or offences under special statutes like POCSO cannot be quashed merely on settlement.

ii) It was submitted that Section 6 POCSO Act prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years, and judicial discretion cannot override legislative intent. The argument emphasised that permitting consensual adolescent relationships to dilute statutory rape provisions would undermine child protection laws. Reference was made to K. Dhandapani v. State (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056), where the Court reiterated that POCSO provisions are strict liability offences to safeguard minors.

iii) The State contended that the High Court ignored systemic failures, including abandonment by parents, non-functioning of Child Welfare Committees, and lack of rehabilitation measures. It was emphasised that such failures cannot justify acquittal of the accused, but must instead impose greater responsibility upon the State to rehabilitate the victim.

iv) It was argued that under Article 21 Constitution, the State has a duty to protect the dignity, privacy, and well-being of adolescent victims. The neglect in providing counselling, legal aid, and educational support amounted to constitutional violation. Reliance was placed on Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 703, where the Court stressed on confidentiality and welfare-centric approach in POCSO cases.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsel for the accused argued that the victim, now a major, expressed informed willingness to continue her marital life with the accused. Therefore, strict enforcement of sentencing would only harm the victim and her child. Reference was made to Vijayalakshmi v. State (2021 SCC OnLine Mad 317), where the Madras High Court held that POCSO was not intended to criminalise consensual adolescent romantic relationships.

ii) It was contended that the victim does not perceive herself as a “victim” but as a wife and mother, fighting to preserve her family. Hence, compelling imprisonment of the accused would violate her right to privacy, autonomy, and dignity under Article 21 Constitution.

iii) The defence emphasised that the legal system caused greater trauma than the alleged crime, due to exploitation by lawyers, financial debt, and social stigma. Therefore, proportionality demanded waiver of sentence under Article 142 Constitution.

iv) Reliance was placed on Ajay Kumar v. State (2022 SCC OnLine Del 3705) and Ranjit Rajbanshi v. State of West Bengal (2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2470), where courts considered adolescent relationships as distinct from exploitative sexual assault, recommending nuanced interpretation of POCSO.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Minimum sentence of twenty years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

ii) Section 19(6) POCSO Act – Duty of police to report child victims to Child Welfare Committee and ensure care and protection.

iii) Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Kidnapping, abduction, and repeated rape of a minor.

iv) Section 482 CrPC, 1973 – Inherent power of High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice.

v) Article 21 Constitution – Right to life with dignity, privacy, and informed choice.

vi) Article 142 Constitution – Supreme Court’s plenary power to do complete justice.

vii) Section 46 Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Obligation of State to provide aftercare and rehabilitation support to children in need of care.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, while confirming acquittal under Sections 363, 366 IPC. However, recognising the peculiar circumstances, the Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 Constitution to hold that though convicted, the accused would not undergo imprisonment.

The Court reasoned that sentencing would disproportionately harm the victim, who is emotionally and economically dependent on the accused, and would add to the injustice already caused by society, family, and State failures. The Court emphasised that justice cannot be confined to legal formalism, but must ensure the holistic well-being of the victim and her child.

The Court castigated the State for failing to discharge obligations under POCSO Act and JJ Act. It noted that the victim was abandoned by her parents, stigmatised by society, denied counselling, and financially exploited by lawyers. The State’s inaction deprived her of the fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 Constitution.

To remedy the situation, the Court directed the State of West Bengal to:

• Provide better housing to the victim and her child.

• Bear full educational expenses of the victim up to graduation and of the child up to Class X in a good school.

• Offer free vocational training and part-time employment opportunities.

• Assist through NGOs in clearing debts incurred by the victim.

The Court further directed the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to form an expert committee to consider systemic reforms, including comprehensive sexuality education, real-time data collection for adolescent well-being, and better enforcement of POCSO and JJ Act.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi of this case rests upon the delicate balance between statutory mandates under POCSO Act and constitutional obligations under Article 21 and Article 142. The Court unequivocally held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside a conviction for a heinous offence under Section 6 POCSO Act by invoking Article 226 Constitution and Section 482 CrPC. Relying upon Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court reiterated that serious offences like rape cannot be quashed even with victim consent, as they are crimes against society.

However, the Court also emphasised that sentencing cannot be divorced from the lived realities of the victim. The reports of the expert committee demonstrated that the victim, abandoned by her family and unsupported by State machinery, had built an emotional and economic dependence on the accused. She desired continuity of her family unit. In such a scenario, sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment would inflict greater trauma upon the victim and her child.

Thus, while the conviction was upheld to maintain fidelity to the statutory mandate, the sentence was waived under Article 142 Constitution. The Court held that its extraordinary power permits it to mould relief to ensure “complete justice”, even where statutory provisions mandate minimum punishment. This articulation aligns with Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231, where Article 142 was invoked to dissolve marriages outside statutory parameters.

The ratio firmly establishes that while POCSO provisions are of strict liability, sentencing in exceptional cases involving adolescent relationships may be harmonised with principles of proportionality, privacy, and social justice under Article 21. The Court declared this decision to be non-precedential, recognising its uniqueness, but nonetheless set out binding directions for systemic reform.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court’s obiter observations are profound and wide-ranging, providing a jurisprudential roadmap for adolescent rights. Firstly, it observed that the real trauma for victims of adolescent elopements is not always the sexual act, but the societal stigma, parental abandonment, and failures of State machinery. It stressed that victims often become trapped in cycles of poverty, indebtedness, and exploitation due to lack of institutional support.

Secondly, the Court highlighted that adolescent privacy and autonomy require nuanced protection. It noted that adolescents lack opportunities for informed choice in relationships due to absence of comprehensive sexuality education. Drawing from UNESCO’s Global Status Report on Comprehensive Sexuality Education (2021), the Court observed that India’s policy gaps perpetuate misinformation and stigma surrounding adolescent sexual health.

Thirdly, the Court criticised systemic lapses: non-functional Child Protection Committees, ineffective implementation of West Bengal’s Kanyashree Prakalpa Scheme, lack of free legal aid, and rampant financial exploitation by lawyers. It noted that these failures violate Article 21 and Section 19(6) POCSO Act, which mandates immediate reporting and care by Child Welfare Committees.

Finally, the Court invoked the constitutional vision of India as a welfare state under the Preamble. It lamented the failure to deliver social and economic justice to the victim, reiterating that rehabilitation is not charity but a constitutional duty. These dicta reinforce the jurisprudence of welfare-centric justice evolved in cases like Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 703 and Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 1.

c) GUIDELINES

The Supreme Court issued extensive directions, structured around victim rehabilitation, adolescent well-being, and institutional reform:

1. Relief to Victim and Child

   • The State shall provide better shelter to the victim, accused, and their child within a few months.

   • The State shall bear full educational expenses of the victim up to Class X, extendable to degree level if she desires, and offer vocational training thereafter.

   • The State shall bear the entire educational cost of the child up to Class X in a reputed school.

   • The State shall assist through NGOs/public-spirited citizens to secure repayment of debts incurred by the victim during litigation.

2. Compliance Monitoring

   • The State of West Bengal must file compliance reports every six months, with the first due on 15 July 2025.

3. Institutional Reforms

   • Copies of the judgment were forwarded to all States/UTs to ensure strict implementation of Section 19(6) POCSO Act and Section 46 JJ Act.

   • States must create machinery to ensure rehabilitation of victims and integrate schemes of Government of India and NALSA.

   • Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to constitute an Expert Committee to implement amici curiae’s suggestions.

4. Policy Directions for Adolescent Welfare

   • Introduce comprehensive sexuality education in curricula, supported by trained teachers and community outreach.

   • Establish structured data collection mechanisms to monitor POCSO cases, counselling services, child marriages, and educational interventions.

   • Develop real-time dashboards for transparency and accountability in adolescent welfare.

5. Clarification of Precedential Value

   • The decision not to impose imprisonment was declared case-specific and not a precedent for future POCSO cases.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents represents a transformative moment in Indian constitutional and criminal jurisprudence. It acknowledges the rigid statutory framework of POCSO, yet tempers it with constitutional compassion under Article 142. By upholding conviction but waiving imprisonment, the Court prioritised the lived reality of the victim, who sought preservation of her family unit. This reflects a shift from punitive formalism to restorative justice, where rehabilitation, dignity, and social justice prevail over retribution.

Importantly, the judgment exposes the collective failure of the welfare state. The victim, abandoned by her family, denied counselling, and exploited financially, had to fight her battles alone. The Court’s directions place responsibility squarely upon the State to act as guardian, thereby expanding the jurisprudence of positive obligations under Article 21.

At the same time, the Court drew a careful line by declaring this case non-precedential, thereby avoiding a slippery slope that could weaken child protection laws. Yet, the obiter dicta and guidelines lay down a reformist blueprint—comprehensive sexuality education, data-driven accountability, strengthening of Child Welfare Committees, and holistic rehabilitation schemes.

This judgment thus situates adolescent privacy and autonomy within the constitutional discourse, complementing earlier pronouncements like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 on privacy, and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231 on Article 142. It challenges India’s legal system to reconcile statutory rigidity with social realities, reaffirming that law must ultimately serve justice and human dignity.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:
i. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
ii. K. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056.
iii. Sankar v. State of Tamil Nadu, Curative Petition (Crl.) 3/2023.
iv. Elumalai v. Inspector of Police, Crl. Appeal No. 674/2018.
v. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231.
vi. Ajay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3705.
vii. Vijayalakshmi v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 317.
viii. Ranjit Rajbanshi v. State of West Bengal, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2470.
ix. Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703.
x. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

Important Statutes Referred:
i. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 6, 19(6).
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3).
iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482.
iv. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 46.
v. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – Section 9.
vi. Constitution of India – Articles 21, 142, 226.