Citation – In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1200
Court – Supreme Court
Bench – Abhat S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Date – 23 May 2025
Facts
- In May 2018, a 14-year-old girl had left her house in West Bengal, reportedly lured by a 25-year-old man. Her mother registered an FIR on 29 May 2018. The girl birthed a child, biologically fathered by the accused.
- She was temporarily put in a juvenile home but eventually continued living with the accused. The police arrested the accused only on 19 December 2021, and the charge sheet was filed in January 2022.
- The Special Court found the accused guilty under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363, 366 IPC, with convictions under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC. Nevertheless, no independent sentence was awarded under IPC rape offenses due to overlapping sentences.
- The accused was acquitted by the Calcutta High Court in October 2023, based on the couple’s sustained cohabitation and abandonment by the victim’s parents.
- The acquittal was overturned by the Supreme Court in August 2024, the conviction under POCSO and IPC rape offenses reinstated, and the sentencing postponed. The Court subsequently instituted suo-motu proceedings.
Issues Raised
- Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be used to waive or mitigate the statutory minimum sentence mandated for sexual offenses, in rare cases of adolescent relationships?
- Whether the delay on the part of the State and its instrumentalities in rendering timely care, legal aid, protection, and rehabilitation to a child victim of sexual offences, though under obligation under Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act and the said provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, amounts to an infringement of the victim’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Contentions
PETETIONER’S
Exceptional Situations justify Departure from Statutory Sentencing: The case was distinguished by exceptional facts under which the victim, who is now an adult, co-habits with the accused and together they are bringing up a child. She does not identify herself as a victim, and additional imprisonment of the accused would disrupt their family and entail further trauma.
Article 142 Permits the Court to Grant Total Justice: It was urged that Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the authority to deviate from statutory provisions in rare situations to avoid injustice. Referring to precedents dealing with juvenile relations, the petitioner highlighted that total justice calls for the protection of the victim’s current welfare, rather than mere compliance with statutes.
Failure by the State to Give Aid Violated Article 21: The petitioner alleged that the State neglected its legal responsibility to care for the victim under the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act.
Legal Process Became a Source of Further Trauma: It was also contended that the criminal trials themselves caused irreparable psychological and social damage to the victim, aggravating her pain rather than offering justice.
RESPONDENT’S
Conviction on Technical Statutory Presumptions Must Not Supersede Actual-Life Situations: The respondent defended that between him and the victim, there existed a non-exploitative relationship founded on mutual affection. The imposition of a harsh sentence solely on technical considerations would devastate their established family life and cause injustice to the victim too.
Victim’s Wishes and Autonomy Have to Be Upheld: It was argued that the adult victim had consistently and unequivocally communicated her preference not to be forcibly removed from the respondent. The Court was asked to acknowledge her lived reality and agency, as opposed to regarding her as a mere passive statutory victim, further injustice will subject both the victim and her child to psychological, emotional, and economic injury.
No Force or Violence Allegation: The respondent highlighted that no threat of coercion, violence, or force was made in the relationship. The type of attachment, ongoing living together, and shared parenting demonstrated long term commitment rather than criminality.
Rationale
The Supreme Court in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents passed a paradigmatic judgment that, where the decision lies at the crossroads of statutory fulfillment, constitutional justice, and rehabilitative sensitivity.
A. Sentencing and Article 142 of the Constitution
The Court restored the verdict of the learned special court, however Quoting Article 142, the Court reiterated that the aim of criminal law is not punishment but the administration of justice in its full sense. The victim, forsaken by her own family and unsupported by the State, had herself chosen to share life with the accused and bring up their child. Sensitized to this, the Court refused to impose a sentence that would be detrimental to the established life and emotional well-being of the victim and child.
“ Sentences as ordained by law will not bring full justice in the present case.” Supreme Court
B. Victim-Centric and Rights-Based Approach
The ruling is a departure from a strict statutory approach to a jurisprudence of the victim. Rather than treating her as a passive beneficiary of state protection, the Court respected her volition, basing its argument on the greater principles of dignity and self-determination.
C. Constitutional Obligation of the State under Article 21 and Systemic and Policy Reform
The Court criticized the State for its passivity, holding that its inaction in extending care, counselling, legal assistance, and rehabilitation to a vulnerable teen was a breach of her fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21. It ordered the State to act as guardian and provide shelter, education, nutrition, and monetary assistance. The Court also acknowledged the broader systemic failure in child protection. It instructed the Union and State governments to establish real-time tracking of POCSO enforcement, enhance local child welfare institutions, and encourage comprehensive sexuality education in order to prevent such failures in the future.
Defects Of Law
Though the Supreme Court’s decision is remarkable for its empathy, victim-oriented approach, and innovative application of Article 142, some legal and structural loopholes still exist.
Lack of a Judicial Framework for Sentencing Discretion in Adolescent Cases
The Court remitted the statutory minimum sentence under POCSO and IPC for an offence as grave as rape, drawing upon Article 142 to exercise “complete justice.” But it did not develop guiding principles or tests for when such discretion is warranted. Without a formalized test, subordinate courts are left with minimal guidance on how to handle such similar cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents.
No Guidance on the Permitted Scope of Powers of High Court under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC
The court did not deliver a categorical verdict on whether High Courts can exercise their writ or inherent jurisdiction to quash convictions in non-compoundable serious offences under POCSO or the IPC. Since the High Court had invoked Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC to rationalize its intervention, a categorical ruling on the legal boundaries of such power in heinous offence matters would have ended a nagging uncertainty in criminal jurisprudence.
No Doctrinal Clarification on POCSO’s Applicability in Adolescent Consensual Relationships
The Court recognized that youth relationships are a special space where the boundary of consensual intimacy and statutory crime can overlap. It did not, however, interpret how the POCSO Act must be treated in instances where both the parties involved are youths and emotionally invested. In spite of citing progressive High Court judgments, the Supreme Court did not determine whether the Act should regard all such cases as being inherently exploitative. The question is left to wider debate regarding proportionality and legislative change.
Inadequate Mandating Structural Reform of Legal Aid and Child Protection Mechanisms
The Court instructed the Union (MoWCD) to consider systemic reforms but did not make binding structural changes, rather suggesting policy formulation by an expert committee and report on compliance by the State. There were no definite requirements for deepening child welfare committees, enforcing Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, or making genuine accountability in legal aid systems and state welfare departments.
No Consideration of Precedential Limits
The Court itself stated that waiver of sentence in this case would be non-precedential. Though this safeguards against abuse, it also keeps the judgment from establishing a lasting doctrinal change. A more discerning consideration of how subsequent courts might handle analogous fact situations under directed discretion would have provided enduring benefit.
Inference
In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents is an important point in Indian constitutional law in which the Supreme Court reconciled statutory criminal law with constitutional empathy. By exercising Article 142 to remit the statutory penalty while affirming the conviction under POCSO and IPC, particularly in extraordinary cases of adolescent relationships and state failure.
What is transformative in this judgment is its move towards a victim-oriented approach, one that prioritizes the lived realities, agency, and autonomy of the adolescent girl over positioning her as a passive recipient of protection from the state.
Yet, as in other socially consequential judgments, the Court did not go as far as imposing tangible structural remedies. While it set a policy conversation in motion by impleading the Union and instructing a committee to examine systemic deficiencies, it proposed no enforceable institutional reforms, leaving the deeper questions of legal aid, POCSO implementation, and child welfare compliance in the hands of the executive.
Nevertheless, the judgment establishes a forward-thinking jurisprudence for how the courts can approach statutory requirements within the context of social realities, particularly for vulnerable adolescents. It recasts justice as not merely retribution, but safeguard, cure, and acceptance. As India grapples with the intricacies of child rights, sexual crimes, and adolescent independence, this decision establishes the platform for a more compassionate and context sensitive legal system.
Author’s info –
Aastha Gadekar
BA.LLB (hons.)
Institute of Law, Nirma University