Supreme Court to examine POCSO clause requiring mandatory reporting of sexual activity
The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 24, 2025) agreed to hear concerns flagged by senior advocate Indira Jaising that mandatory reporting of sexual activity, even if a voluntary one, under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) is leading to the criminalisation of the young and poses a threat to the fundamental right to health of adolescent girls.
Appearing before a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, Ms. Jaising, who is amicus curiae in the case along with senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, said the age of consent was raised from 16 years to 18 in 2012 with the enactment of the POCSO. This has led to a situation when knowledge of even voluntary sexual activity between juveniles is required to be reported to the police.
Also read | Why has the Supreme Court clarified POCSO provisions?
'Counselling and not criminalisation is required in such cases. We do not need to create an army of criminals,' Ms. Jaising submitted.
The senior advocate said parents, guardians, and even doctors are being penalised on the ground that they had knowledge but did not report to the police about the sexual activity.
'A doctor to whom a juvenile approaches for medical care has to report the sexual activity to the police even if she says it was voluntary. In such a situation, juveniles would turn to quacks and endanger their health,' Ms. Jaising argued.
The court said Ms. Jaising has raised a 'serious and relevant' issue. It scheduled a detailed hearing on May 8.
The Bench suggested taking the aid of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, and, if required, the Attorney General of India on the issue.
The Legislature had intended the requirement for mandatorily reporting sexual activity under Section 19 of the POCSO to prioritise timely intervention and protection of children.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
OBC quota deadlock dominates politics in West Bengal; new list an appeasement move, says BJP
The deadlock over the Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation continues to dominate politics in West Bengal with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leadership accusing the State government of 'appeasement politics' on Wednesday, a day after Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said that'backwardness'wasthe only benchmark to decide OBC categories. Addressing the State Assembly while tabling the annual report of the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes for the financial year 2024-25,the Chief Minister had said on Tuesday that a commission set up by the government is holding a survey on 50 new subsections for inclusion in the category. The Calcutta High Court in May 2024 had struck down the OBC reservation awarded to 77 categories, highlighting a complete lack of legislative policy within the 2012 scheme to classify any group as OBC. The matter is pending before the Supreme Court. On March 19, 2025, the State government told the Supreme Court that it would complete the fresh OBC survey within three months. Since the fresh list of OBC reservation is not available, the admission to colleges in the State has not started almost a month after results of Higher Secondary Examinations have been declared. The State government on Tuesday also tabled in the Assembly an interim report on the new OBC list for reservations. 'One-sided benefits' Reacting to the developments, Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari took to social media and said, 'If this reservation list is not prepared with the intention of providing 'one-sided benefits' exclusively to Muslims, by deliberately depriving Hindus and other communities, then the sun rises in the west.' Meanwhile, State Education Minister Bratya Basu has assured that there will be no disruption in the academic calender due to the OBC reservation list.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Quota sub-categorisation ensures marginalised get their share: CJI B R Gavai
NEW DELHI: Nearly a year after penning the seven-judge Supreme Court bench's majority view favouring sub-categorisation of Scheduled Caste quota, India's second Dalit CJI B R Gavai has said the ruling ensured that the most backward among Dalits got a fair share in public employment and admissions to govt educational institutions. Speaking at the Oxford Union on 'From Representation to Realisation: Embodying the Constitution's Promise' on Tuesday night, CJI Gavai stepped into the rare zone of a judge explaining his judgment in public. The seven-judge bench judgment, authored by Justice Gavai, had on Aug 1 last year permitted states to sub-categorise castes within SC communities based on socio-economic backwardness and the degree of under-representation in govt jobs to ensure that the larger pie of 15% quota went to the most backward. The court had asked govts to devise suitable criteria to bar the 'creamy layer' among the SCs from availing reservation. The logic behind the court's suggestion for keeping out the 'creamy layer' was that the children of civil servants and others from among the SCs, who had moved up on the socio-economic ladder and received good education, were not deserving of quotas. In his speech, CJI Gavai said the apex court's decision to uphold the principle of sub-classification within quotas for SCs "was not to question the relevance or success of reservations, but to ensure that the most marginalised within marginalised groups receive their fair share". He said many decades ago, millions of citizens of India were called untouchables, but the country had marched ahead and "here we are today, where a person belonging to those very (untouchable) people is speaking openly, as the holder of the highest office in the judiciary of the country". "This is what the Constitution of India did. It told the people of India that they belong, that they can speak for themselves, and that they have an equal place in every sphere of society and power," he said, adding that it was possible because the prime architect of the Constitution, Dr B R Ambedkar, made inclusivity and equality the bedrock of constitutional values and guarantees.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Forced narco tests illegal, results not admissible: Supreme Court
Setting aside a high court order allowing narco-analysis tests on accused persons without consent, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that involuntary or forced tests are not permissible under the law. The Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to undergo narco-analysis, without free and informed consent, violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the report of such an involuntary test or any information discovered as a result is not admissible as evidence in criminal or other proceedings," the bench clarified. The order came days after a Patna High Court order accepting a police officer's submission to subject all accused persons and witnesses in a criminal case to narco-analysis testing. The submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer was accepted during the hearing of a bail plea filed by the its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its landmark 2010 judgment in Selvi and Others v State of Karnataka, which held that forcibly subjecting individuals to narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain mapping tests was unconstitutional. The court reiterated that these techniques, if not voluntarily undertaken, breach personal liberty and the right against safeguards laid down in the Selvi case judgement:No lie detector or narco-analysis test shall be conducted without the accused's voluntary accused must be informed of the legal, emotional, and physical implications of the to legal counsel must be provided before deciding on consentConsent must be recorded before a Judicial guidelines for polygraph tests should be followed, and similar protocols adopted for narco-analysis and brain mapping top court further clarified that an accused may voluntarily choose to do so at an appropriate stage, such as during the presentation of defence evidence in a even in such cases, the court emphasised that there is no indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis. It also said that judicial authorisation must account for the totality of circumstances, including safeguards and genuine InMust Watch
