In a truly exceptional move, the Supreme Court recently invoked its sweeping powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside POCSO charges against a man. The case involved a relationship with a girl who was a minor at the time, followed by their marriage. The court’s reasoning? They concluded the act “was not the result of lust but love.”
Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, presiding over the bench, considered that the wife – who was the victim in the original complaint – is now happily married to the man, with whom she shares a one-year-old son. Furthermore, her father also expressed a desire for the criminal proceedings against his son-in-law to be concluded, emphasizing their current peaceful family life.
The court acknowledged the fundamental principle that “a crime isn’t just an offense against an individual; it’s an affront to society as a whole.” They noted that when a crime occurs, it impacts the community’s collective conscience. Therefore, society, through its elected representatives, establishes penalties and dictates how offenders should be treated to prevent future occurrences.
They further clarified that while criminal law embodies the will of society, its application must always remain grounded in practical realities, not detached from them.
In their October 28 order, the bench stated that “delivering justice requires a nuanced approach.” They emphasized that the court adapts its rulings to the unique details of each case, demonstrating firmness and severity when required, but also showing mercy when appropriate. It’s also in the best interest of society, they added, to resolve conflicts whenever possible.
Justice Datta, writing for the bench, underscored the necessity of balancing competing interests: achieving justice, ensuring deterrence, and promoting rehabilitation.
The bench highlighted that the Constitution’s framers endowed the Supreme Court with exceptional authority to deliver “complete justice” in suitable circumstances. This constitutional power, they stressed, is distinct and designed to prevent rigid legal applications from leading to unfair outcomes.
The court acknowledged that, according to the legislative framework, if the appellant was found guilty of a serious offense, the proceedings typically couldn’t be dropped simply due to a compromise between him and his wife. However, they concluded that “ignoring the appellant’s wife’s plea for compassion and empathy would not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice.”
The bench observed that even those who commit the most severe offenses are sometimes shown compassion by the courts in appropriate situations. Given the unique details of this particular case, they determined that a balanced approach, merging practicality with empathy, was essential.
The judges noted that “the appellant and the victim are not only legally married, but they are also expecting a child.” They clarified that, after reviewing the offense under the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, they concluded that “the crime was not born out of lust, but from love.”
The victim herself, they stated, “expressed her wish for a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, on whom she relies, without him bearing the permanent stigma of being an offender.”
The Supreme Court concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings and the appellant’s imprisonment to continue would only destabilize this family unit, inflicting irreversible damage on the victim, their young child, and the broader social fabric.
Therefore, based on these considerations, the events that transpired after the trial, and the goal of ensuring complete justice, the court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to annul the criminal proceedings against the appellant, including his conviction and sentence. The order was issued accordingly.
While granting this relief, the Supreme Court issued a stern warning to the man regarding potential future consequences. They imposed a condition that he must not abandon his wife and child, and must continue to support them with dignity for the remainder of their lives.
The bench explicitly stated, “Should the appellant default on these conditions in the future, and this is brought to the court’s attention by his wife, child, or the original complainant, the repercussions for the appellant will be severe.” They also made it clear that this ruling is strictly for these unique circumstances and should not be considered a legal precedent for other cases.