'Absolutely Wrong': Top Court On 'Girls Should Avoid 2 Minutes Of Pleasure' Advisory By Calcutta HC

The SC had earlier said the observations made by the Calcutta High Court "are completely in violation of the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution".

The Supreme Court on Thursday again slammed an observation by the Calcutta High Court that referred to the "sexual urges" of adolescent girls. The matter came to light in December last year when the high court advised adolescent girls to "control their sexual urges". The HC, in its 'advisory', indicated that to avoid being labelled a 'loser' in society girls would indulge in "sexual pleasure for only two minutes", which they should avoid.

"The order sends absolutely wrong signals. What kind of principles the judges are applying under Section 482," the SC was quoted as saying by legal news website Bar & Bench. The SC had earlier said the observations made by the Calcutta High Court "are completely in violation of the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution". "Prima facie, we are of the view that the Hon'ble judges are not expected to express their personal views or preach", the Court said.

The controversy arose during a sexual assault case involving young adults, where the high court issued advisories to teenagers, which included the contentious observations. This led to public outrage, prompting the Supreme Court, on the orders of the Chief Justice of India, to take suo motu cognizance of the matter in a case titled 'In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent'. The bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, is currently hearing the case against the controversial high court judgment.

During a previous hearing, the Supreme Court issued notices to the State of West Bengal, the accused, and the victim, reported legal news website Live Law. The SC expressed that the high court's remarks were 'highly objectionable' and 'completely unwarranted'. The top court emphasized that these statements violated the rights of adolescents under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench, in its order, noted, "In an appeal against conviction, the high court was called upon to decide only the merits of the appeal and nothing else. Prima facie, we are of the view that, in such a case, the judges are not expected to either express their personal views or preach."

Bar & Bench reported that senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the State of West Bengal, told the SC that an appeal had been filed against the Calcutta High Court's verdict. Ahmadi said that the Bengal government, too, believed that the HC's observations were "wrong".