The controversial order passed by the Bombay High Court in the child sexual abuse case was cancelled by the Supreme Court, underlining that “skin to skin” contact isn’t mandatory to deem an act a crime.
The matter was heard in the top court after the Nagpur bench’s decision created outrage in the country. The case was of a minor girl sexually abused by a man. The accused’s advocate had argued that he had only touched the clothes of the girl and not the skin. Taking this into consideration, the Bombay High Court’s female judge declared that as “skin-to-skin” contact wasn’t present, the groping case cannot be termed a crime. The accused was acquitted on this basis.
ALSO READ: Can’t interfere in how to conduct ‘puja’, break a coconut: Supreme court
However, Attorney General KK Venugopal was strongly against the verdict and approached SC. He said that if the BHC’s interpretation of the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) is followed for other cases too, the repercussions will be “devasting” as then “someone can wear a surgical glove and exploit a child and get away scot-free”.
The Supreme Court ruled out in its order that skin contact doesn’t form the basis for the crime, “sexual intent” does. Setting aside the BHC’s judgment which had stated that “groping a minor’s breast without ‘skin to skin contact”, the top court reiterated the intention behind the Act itself. The bench consisting of Justices UU Lalit, SR Bhat, and Bela M Trivedi said that POCSO was created to protect children against sexual abuse.
As per definition, POSCO regards sexual assault as an act when any person “with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault”.
The Bombay High Court’s order was challenged by several committees and individuals including the National Commission of Women, Youth Bar Association of India, the Attorney General and the State of Maharashtra itself. Appearing on behalf of the NCW was senior advocate Geeta Luthra, who is the sister of senior advocate Sidharth Luthra- the lawyer appearing for the accused as an amicus curiae. The SC said over this that a sister and brother have also stood against each other this time.
ALSO READ: Firecracker Ban Is Not against particular festival, celebration: Supreme Court
After the January 19th‘s order was stayed on January 27th, the SC heard the case today and questioned the interpreted meaning of “touch”. “What does touch mean, simply a touch? Even if you’re wearing a piece of clothing, they’re not trying to touch clothing. We must see touch in the meaning that Parliament intended,” the Court ruled.
Cancelling the previous order, the bench said, “We have held that when the legislature has expressed clear intention, the courts cannot create ambiguity in the provision. It is right that courts cannot be overzealous in creating ambiguity.”
Calling it a “narrow interpretation” of a greater law, the top court said, “The most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault is sexual intent and not skin-to-skin contact with the child. The construction of a rule should give effect to the rule rather than destroy it. Any narrow interpretation of the provision which would defeat its object cannot be accepted. The intention of the legislature cannot be given effect unless the wider interpretation is given.”
Today’s order came after the Attorney General was permitted to file an appeal against the BHC’s order by the SC. When he first brought it in front of the court, Mr Venugopal had said that the verdict could create a “dangerous precedent”.
(This story has been sourced from a third-party syndicated feed, agencies. Raavi Media accepts no responsibility or liability for the dependability, trustworthiness, reliability, and data of the text. Raavi Media management/ythisnews.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content at its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.)
