System Failed Her | Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Protect Victim’s Future | Says ‘Law, Society And Family Did Enough Damage’ | Not A Precedent
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that although the accused stood convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), he shall not undergo sentence. In an extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court ordered that the accused be spared imprisonment to prevent further trauma to the prosecutrix, who had since formed a family unit with the accused and expressed a strong desire to preserve it. The Court further directed the State of West Bengal to take rehabilitative and protective measures for the victim and her child. This included providing shelter, education, and other forms of socio-economic support. A nationwide directive was also issued to ensure implementation of child protection laws and formulation of mechanisms to prevent similar systemic failures.
The matter arose from Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024 filed by the State of West Bengal challenging a judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 18th October 2023, which had acquitted an accused previously convicted by a Special POCSO Judge. The High Court had invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to set aside the conviction. Simultaneously, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023 was initiated by the Supreme Court following certain contentious observations in the High Court's judgement and the broader concern regarding the privacy and welfare rights of adolescent victims.
The prosecution case, based on a First Information Report filed on 29th May 2018, stated that a fourteen-year-old girl had been enticed by the accused to leave her home on 20th May 2018. Her mother alleged involvement of the accused and his two sisters. A female child was later born to the victim, with the accused being the biological father. Despite delays in investigation, the accused was arrested on 19th December 2021, and a chargesheet was filed on 27th January 2022. He was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Sections 363 and 366 IPC, and additionally charged under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, although the latter was not substantiated.
The Special Judge sentenced the accused to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and imposed additional sentences for the IPC charges. However, no separate punishment was awarded under Section 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC due to the higher punishment under the POCSO Act. The accused appealed, and the Calcutta High Court acquitted him, citing the ongoing cohabitation and shared parenthood with the victim, whose own mother had disowned her.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment on 20th August 2024, reinstating the trial court's conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC, while confirming the acquittal under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. However, the issue of sentencing was deferred pending reports from a specially appointed Committee comprising experts from Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), the Department of Health of West Bengal, and the District Social Welfare Office.
The Committee submitted preliminary and final reports, stating the victim’s socio-economic hardships, the financial burden of defending the accused, and the emotional trauma suffered due to the legal proceedings. The Committee's final report characterized the case as one in which the victim did not perceive the event as a crime but suffered due to the legal consequences. The victim expressed her wish to continue residing with the accused and desired educational and vocational support for herself and her child.
The Court interacted directly with the Committee and the victim on 3rd April 2025. The victim confirmed her desire to maintain the family unit. The Committee described the support provided by the victim’s marital family and stated her new sense of responsibility as a mother and partner. Details of the family's poverty, the victim’s educational pursuits, and the couple’s commitment to their child's education were also documented. The State of West Bengal offered support through educational schemes, shelter, nutritional programs, and financial sponsorships.
The Court observed, "The situation in which the victim was placed after the commission of the offence needs a bit of elaboration... She had no option but to seek shelter where it was provided to her i.e. in the house of the accused."
It was recorded, "She did not get any support from her parents and the State machinery when she required it the most... She had no opportunity to make an informed choice about her future."
The Bench examined the constitutional and statutory failures stating, "Though, under the existing law, the State could have taken adequate care of the poor victim, it was not done."
The Court recorded, "The failure to do so will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the victim children under Article 21."
Further the Court noted, "In such a case, it is the duty of the State to provide shelter, food, clothing, education opportunities, etc., to the victim of the offences as provided in law."
Regarding sentencing, the Court stated "What troubles us is the issue of sentencing... The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her."
The Bench explained its constitutional justification: "Ultimately, this Court is bestowed with extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 for the sole object of ensuring that the highest Court of the land is in a position to do substantial justice in its truest sense."
Stating the rehabilitative needs, the Court reflected, "The facts of the case indicate failure of the concept of welfare state... To remedy the situation in this case, it is the obligation of the State Government to act as the true guardian of the victim and her child."
The Court held: "We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and hold that though the accused stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence for the reasons stated earlier."
The Court ordered that the accused would not undergo the sentence despite conviction, invoking Article 142 to prevent further hardship to the victim. It directed the State of West Bengal to act as a true guardian to the victim and her child, and to provide improved shelter within a few months.
The State was ordered to bear the cost of the victim’s education up to 10th standard and, if she desired, through a degree course. The State may offer vocational training at its cost following the completion of secondary education. The Court also ordered that the entire cost of the child’s education up to 10th standard be borne by the State and that the child be enrolled in a good school near their residence.
The State was further directed to endeavour to help the victim repay her debts by coordinating with NGOs or public-spirited citizens. The State must file a compliance report detailing steps taken to implement these directions by 15th July 2025, with follow-up reports every six months thereafter.
The Union of India, through the Ministry of Women and Child Development, was impleaded and directed to constitute a committee of experts to evaluate broader suggestions provided by the amicus curiae. These included introducing comprehensive sexuality education, real-time data collection mechanisms for adolescent welfare, and standardized responses to adolescent relationships under the POCSO framework.
The committee’s members appointed by the Court were made permanent invitees to the Union Government’s committee. The Ministry was instructed to submit a detailed report before the next hearing on 25th July 2025.
Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 778
Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
[Read/Download order]
