An older man charged with groping a child’s breast who was fully dressed lead to a very controversial ruling by the HC bench stating it was not sexual assault because it was not skin on skin. It caused much controversy and anger and now the apex court stepped in and issued a stay order.
I truly welcome the move by the Supreme Court. Whatever was said by the high court was meaningless. It was an invitation to molest the child. Please understand Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) has clearly defined sexual assault. It was a mistaken interpretation of the act by the high court bench. The act talks about touching private parts, sexual harassment by way of passing lewd remarks and finally penetration. The judge went overboard. The stay is a good move.
Arunendra Pandey – Director Anay Rahit Zindagi
I was quite sure the Supreme Court would issue a stay. The HC bench ruling of skin on skin to qualify as sexual assault was erroneous. Today various sections and even the definition of rape have been broadened. Earlier it was penile penetration; today it also includes using object or inserting finger. The ruling by the HC had reduced sexual assault to a very narrow definition. It would have made it very difficult to prove sexual assault. Now this stay is great news.
Caroline Collasso Advocate Human Rights Law Network
The ruling by the high court bench was painful and it pains me because I am part of the judiciary. Children are innocent and will not be aware of the intent of the senior. Even if someone touches the body how will they understand it? The stay by the Supreme Court was a great move. The stay order is the first step. There will then have another hearing and then make the final decision. We were planning to move the Supreme Court after the ruling by the high court. We had talked to all the people in the state. Children can be photographed wearing scanty dresses or encouraged to talk on webcam without wearing clothes. This has happened. The move by the apex court was timely.
Sushma Mandrekar Goa state commission for protectiuon of Child rights
The verdict passed on January 19 by Justice Pushpa of the Nagpur High Court is contrary to the set law and unacceptable. More so, when it comes from a woman. If left unchallenged this revised definition would have a cascading effect on various provisions involving the safety and security of women and children in particular. The Supreme Court was left with no alternative except to stay the order or face the wrath of those working on the issues related to children and sexual abuse. If not appealed against it would set a “very dangerous precedent” and cripple the intention of POCSO which is to protect children from sexual abuse and to punish sexual offenders. The fact that the court mentioned the name of the child in the judgement violates the confidentiality of the victim and as such needs to be punished. It is a reflection of a judiciary so blind that it does not even know its basics.
Shanti Fonseca Social Scientist and Juvenile Justice Board member
It is good that Supreme Court has stayed the acquittal. It is unfortunate that the Bombay High Court in its judgment sought to give words such a narrow literal meaning, when it is so well known what the spirit of the provision is.
Albertina Almeida Senior Advocate
The POCSO Act is very clear as to what sexual assault is. It was a very unfortunate judgment by the HC bench which would have affected cases. This move by the Supreme Court is a very good move.
Evelyn Gomes Counselor North District Child line
POCSO Act 2012 was created for protection of children from sexual offences. The law is specific. Interpretation however is important and pertinent to the implementation of protective laws created to protect the vulnerable populations. The High Court Order of Skin to skin Contact to determine sexual offences was wanting in its interpretation of the letter of the law. After all even if one goes by the Criminal code, the offender shall commit an offence which is sexual in nature with a child with an intent and full knowledge of its implications. And as such there is no question of a cloth coming between intent to commit a sexual offence and the action itself. The High Court judgement was unprecedented and could have opened doors to dangerous incidences.
Dr. Meenacshi Martins, Psychiatrist, Ex member of Child welfare committee for North and South Goa
Lord Harry Wolf, a former Chief Justice of England had said “Like old clocks, our judicial institutions need to be oiled, wound up and set to true time ( in the context of the HC order on sexual assault)- Adv Aires Rodrigues, Senior lawyer High Court
