Cases of Sexual Assault Cannot be Dismissed on the Basis of Compromise Between Parties, and Other Updates
Satyajeet M.
Child Protection | Alternative Care | Director - Advocacy at Catalysts for Social Action
Welcome back to Child Rights Watch | India.
This week's newsletter includes:
Hope you enjoy reading this. Do share your thoughts and feedback.
To see previous issues, click here.
1. Cases of sexual assault cannot be dismissed on the basis of compromise between parties: Supreme Court
In a case where a teacher was accused of sexually assaulting a student and the Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR due to a compromise between the accused and the victim’s father, the Supreme Court ruled that cases of sexual assault cannot be dismissed due to compromises, as these offenses have a significant societal impact. The appellants in this case were ordinary men residing in the victim's village, who filed the appeal since the State did not challenge the order passed by the High Court. The Court stated that the POCSO Act aims to protect children from sexual offenses and exploitation, and quashing of proceedings initiated under the Act without a trial, except in exceptional circumstances, contradicts the legislature’s intention. The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the crime before exercising the power to quash proceedings.
Details: News report, Judgment
2. Victim compensation order by Sessions Court mandatory in cases of sexual assault: Supreme Court
Hearing an appeal against the rejection of an application seeking suspension of sentence and bail in a case of sexual assault, the Supreme Court mandated that in all cases of sexual assault against minors or women, the Sessions Courts must pass an order for victim compensation. The Court further emphasized the importance of swift implementation of the order by District Legal Services Authority to ensure victims receive compensation promptly. The Court also recommended interim compensation for the victim in the current case.
Details: News report, Judgment
3. Madras High Court issues directions to curb use of tobacco among school children
Expressing concern over the rise in tobacco use among school children in Tamil Nadu despite a ban since 2013, the Madras High Court issued directions to the state government to implement Tobacco Free Educational Institution Guidelines, establish Child Tobacco Cessation Centers and form Tobacco Monitoring Committees in schools to combat the issue. It further directed the central government to issue directions under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to ban tobacco products, including Cool Lip, due to their high nicotine content and potential harm to children. Other directions include prosecuting offenders selling tobacco near schools under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and conducting awareness programs to prevent tobacco use among children.
领英推荐
Details: News report, Judgment
4. Children from invalid marriages can't be denied birth registration: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that children born to unregistered or invalid marriages cannot be denied birth registration. In this case, three minor children, born to parents who lived as husband and wife since 2011, were denied birth registration in Panchayat records on ground of their parents' invalid marriage. They petitioned the Court through their mother. The court ruled in their favor, citing Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which recognizes the legitimacy of children born from void marriages. The Court emphasized that the birth of a child should be considered independently of the legal status of the parents’ relationship. Consequently, the court ordered the respondents to enter the children’s names in the records within five weeks.
Details: News report, Judgment
5. The Juvenile Justice Act, and not the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be applicable while considering the bail application of a child being tried as an adult: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court ruled that even if a child accused of a crime is tried as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, Section 12 of the Act would be applicable for considering bail and not the Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring to Section 12, the Bench noted that the only embargo on releasing a child on bail is if there’s a reasonable ground that his release would bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to danger, or that it would defeat justice. In the present case, the Court was of the opinion that nature of the crime committed by the petitioner didn’t pose a risk of association with known criminals or exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger. The victim girl and her parents also didn’t apprehend any danger and had no objection to extending the petitioner’s bail.
Details: News report, Judgment
6. Gender-based age distinction in the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act a vestige of patriarchy: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court criticized the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) for its gender-based age distinction (since it provides that the minimum age of marriage is 21 years in case of males, and 18 years in case of females), calling it a vestige of patriarchy. The Court stated that the Act, while well-intentioned, perpetuates patriarchal norms by granting males three extra years for education and financial stability, while denying the same to females.
These observations were made in a case where the husband filed an appeal against a Family Court decision to declare his marriage void due to his age at the time of marriage (both were below marriageable age - he was 12 and his wife, 9 years old). The wife opposed the petition, arguing that the “age of majority” under Section 3(3) of the PCMA for a man was 18 years, and since the petition had been filed when the husband was 20+ years, the two-year period of limitation had already expired. The husband contended that since the marriageable age for a man is 21, age of majority for a man under PCMA would be 21 and not 18, and hence his filing was within the period of limitation.
The court ruled that the husband’s appeal to declare his marriage void was valid, as the limitation period should be based on the male’s age of 21, not 18. The court also ordered the husband to pay maintenance and housing to his wife.
Details: News report, Judgment
Other updates:
?