Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Taking suo motu cognisance concerning a Calcutta High Court verdict advising adolescent girls to control their sexual urges, the Supreme Court emphasised on Friday that judges should abstain from expressing personal beliefs or engaging in preaching. The Calcutta High Court had acquitted a man of rape charges, implying in its October 18 verdict that young girls and boys should exercise restraint over their sexual urges.
The Supreme Court scrutinised specific aspects of the Calcutta High Court’s decision, labelling the observations as a violation of the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution. “The observations completely contravene the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution,” stated the court. In response, the court appointed senior lawyer Madhavi Divan as Amicus Curiae to assist in the case.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal mentioned that the suo motu writ petition under Article 32 has been initiated on the directions of the CJI due to “sweeping observations/findings recorded by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court.”
Expressing strong disapproval of the personal remarks made by the Calcutta HC judges, the SC bench emphasised that judges should refrain from conveying personal views or engaging in preaching. The Supreme Court deemed the judges’ remarks “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted.” Follow channel on WhatsApp
NEW DELHI: Taking suo motu cognisance concerning a Calcutta High Court verdict advising adolescent girls to control their sexual urges, the Supreme Court emphasised on Friday that judges should abstain from expressing personal beliefs or engaging in preaching. The Calcutta High Court had acquitted a man of rape charges, implying in its October 18 verdict that young girls and boys should exercise restraint over their sexual urges.
The Supreme Court scrutinised specific aspects of the Calcutta High Court’s decision, labelling the observations as a violation of the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution. “The observations completely contravene the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution,” stated the court. In response, the court appointed senior lawyer Madhavi Divan as Amicus Curiae to assist in the case.
googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal mentioned that the suo motu writ petition under Article 32 has been initiated on the directions of the CJI due to “sweeping observations/findings recorded by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court.”
Expressing strong disapproval of the personal remarks made by the Calcutta HC judges, the SC bench emphasised that judges should refrain from conveying personal views or engaging in preaching. The Supreme Court deemed the judges’ remarks “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted.” Follow channel on WhatsApp
