It sends the “absolutely wrong signal” when judges comment on sexual ethics and the ideal behaviour expected from young boys and girls, the Supreme Court lamented on Thursday, frowning upon a Calcutta high court judgment which suggested that every teenage girl should “control sexual urges” and “protect her right to integrity of her body”.

A bench of justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said judges are expected to go by the statute and principles of law instead of imposing their sense of morality and opinions when cases involving sexual offences come up.

Also read: SC issues SOP for summoning govt officials

“Writing such kinds of things is absolutely wrong. It sends absolutely the wrong signal. What kind of principles judges are invoking by saying such things?” wondered the bench, as it took up the suo motu proceedings initiated against the October 18 judgment of the high court that had further said that “in the eyes of the society she (the teenage girl) is the loser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes”.

“Not only the observations but the conclusions reached by the high court are also wrong. There are so many findings that we cannot accept. Where do these concepts come from, we really don’t know,” remarked the bench.

On December 8, the top court partially stayed the Calcutta high court judgment, observing that judges are not expected to “preach” through their orders and judgment and that the impugned observations were “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted”.

During the brief hearing on Thursday, the West Bengal government informed the bench that the state has also filed an appeal against the high court judgment. Senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the state, said that not only were the observations made by the high court objectionable, the final decision of acquitting the accused in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act case by relying on a “non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship” with a minor girl was also against statutory principles.

Senior counsel Madhavi Divan, who assisted the court as amicus curiae, added that there was no occasion for the high court to call for decriminalisation of consensual sexual acts involving adolescents or pass the contentious comments because the accused in question was not an adolescent but a 25-year-old man while the girl was 14.

Agreeing with Divan, the bench said that it was apparent that the high court’s acquittal order was passed contrary to Pocso. “The high court said that the law should be changed. And if it is not like that, we are still doing it. In the teeth of the statute, how could it be done?” asked the bench.

The court fixed the next hearing of the case on January 12 when the state government’s appeal against the acquittal of the man would also be taken up with the suo motu case. “We will hear both the cases together. We will issue notices on the special leave petition on the next date so that the accused and other parties are also before us,” it told Divan and Ahmadi.

Deciding a case under the Pocso Act, a division bench of the high court on October 18noted that though it is normal for each adolescent to seek the company of the opposite sex, “it is not normal for them to engage in sex devoid of any commitment and dedication”. Outlining a set of duties for adolescent girls and boys concerning sexual urges and relationships, the high court said girls should protect their dignity and self-worth and thrive for overall development.

Boys, it said, they should “respect the aforesaid duties of a young girl or woman and he should train his mind to respect a woman, her self-worth, her dignity and privacy, and right to autonomy of her body”.

In a similar instance in the past, the Supreme Court had by a judgment in March 2021 issued detailed guidelines on how cases involving sexual assault must be handled as it emphasised on the need for sensitivity among judges and lawyers. This judgment directed all courts in the country to desist from commenting upon dress, behaviour, past conduct, morals or chastity of women, or suggest any “compromise formula” while deciding cases of sexual offences.

Stressing that “entrenched paternalistic and misogynistic attitudes that are regrettably reflected at times in judicial orders’’ must be forbidden, the top court has issued a slew of directives, along with a checklist for the judges, to eliminate social bias from entering the judicial reasoning. It underlined that use of reasoning or language which diminished the offence and trivialized the survivor had to be avoided under all circumstances.

Citing specific illustrations, the court in its 2021 judgment held: “Thus, the following conduct, actions or situations are hereby deemed irrelevant, e.g. – to say that the survivor had in the past consented to such or similar acts or that she behaved promiscuously, or by her acts or clothing, provoked the alleged action of the accused, that she behaved in a manner unbecoming of chaste or “Indian” women, or that she had called upon the situation by her behavior, etc.”

The 2021 judgment came while setting aside a July 2020 order of the Madhya Pradesh high court asking a molestation case accused to have a rakhi tied on his wrist (something sisters usually do) by the complainant as a condition for bail, the top court held that this order transformed a molester into a brother, by a judicial mandate and thus, reflected adversely on the entire judicial system of the country.