Case Commentary: Probhat Purkait @ Provat vs. The State of West Bengal (2023)

1. Introduction:
The case of Probhat Purkait @ Provat vs. The State of West Bengal (2023) brings to light significant legal questions regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case is particularly crucial in understanding how Indian courts interpret statutory provisions concerning adolescent consensual relationships. The matter transitioned from the Calcutta High Court to the Supreme Court of India, highlighting contrasting judicial perspectives on the role of consent in cases involving minors. The fundamental legal issue revolves around whether consensual sexual activity with a minor can exempt the accused from criminal liability under the provisions of POCSO and IPC.

2. Facts of the Case:
The victim, a 14-year-old girl, left her home on May 20, 2018, allegedly influenced by the accused, Probhat Purkait, with the assistance of his relatives. The victim’s mother filed a First Information Report (FIR) on May 29, 2018, accusing Probhat of enticing her daughter. During the investigation, it was uncovered that the victim had been living with the accused, and a child was later born from their relationship. The accused was arrested in December 2021 after a significant delay in the investigation. The trial was conducted in the Special POCSO Court, which found the accused guilty under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for his offenses.

However, the accused appealed the decision to the Calcutta High Court, which took a divergent view, emphasizing the consensual nature of the relationship and the socio-economic circumstances of both the victim and the accused. The High Court’s decision to acquit the accused led to a further appeal by the State of West Bengal to the Supreme Court of India.

3. Issues Raised:
The primary issues raised in this case pertain to the interpretation and application of laws concerning minors engaged in consensual sexual relationships. The first and foremost issue is whether consensual sexual relations with a minor can be exempted from being considered a criminal offense under the POCSO Act and the IPC. The legal framework in India is clear: any sexual activity involving a person under 18 years of age is punishable, irrespective of consent. This rigid interpretation is designed to ensure the protection of minors from exploitation and abuse.

The second issue revolves around whether High Courts have the discretion to acquit an accused based on post-offense circumstances, such as the continued relationship between the victim and the accused or their shared responsibilities, like raising a child. This raises questions about the balance between legal strictness and the realities of individual cases. Should the courts consider the evolving nature of relationships when determining guilt, or should they adhere strictly to statutory mandates?

Lastly, the case questions whether the current legal framework under the POCSO Act and IPC sufficiently addresses the complexities surrounding adolescent consensual relationships. With the changing social landscape and evolving understanding of adolescent behavior, there is an ongoing debate about whether the law should differentiate between exploitative and non-exploitative circumstances. This case brings these issues to the forefront, challenging the rigidity of existing laws and calling for potential legislative reforms.

4. Judgment of the High Court (18 October 2023):
The Calcutta High Court quashed the conviction, providing several reasons for its decision. Firstly, the Court observed that the victim had voluntarily left her home and later married the accused. The Court emphasized that the relationship was non-exploitative and that both parties continued to cohabit and raise their child. The High Court noted that the victim’s parents had disowned her, and she was living with the accused by choice.

The High Court’s decision was also influenced by its interpretation of the rigidity of the POCSO Act. The judges expressed concerns about the criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships, suggesting that the law might need legislative reconsideration to differentiate between exploitative and non-exploitative cases. The Court’s ruling was not solely based on legal reasoning but also included personal and sociological observations about adolescent sexuality, the impact of social media, and modern lifestyle influences on early puberty.

However, these observations were later deemed irrelevant and inappropriate by the Supreme Court. The High Court’s decision to consider post-offense circumstances and its commentary on adolescent behavior led to significant criticism, as it appeared to deviate from the strict legal framework intended to protect minors.

5. Judgment of the Supreme Court (20 August 2024):
The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s ruling, emphasizing the strict liability nature of the POCSO Act and the irrelevance of consent in cases involving minors. The Supreme Court ruled that consensual sexual activity with a minor remains a punishable offense under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 375 IPC. The Court found the High Court’s description of the relationship as “non-exploitative” to be legally unsustainable, as the statute does not make allowances for consent when the victim is under 18.

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overstepping its judicial mandate by making sociological and personal observations unrelated to the legal merits of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to engage in policy-making or sociological commentary. The Court stated that courts must follow and implement the law as enacted by the legislature and cannot dilute child protection laws based on personal beliefs or societal observations.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court issued a mandate to all High Courts, directing them to refrain from making personal, moralistic, or ideological remarks in their judgments. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of maintaining judicial propriety and ensuring that legal decisions remain grounded in statutory interpretation and factual evidence. The Court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that child protection laws must be applied strictly to ensure the safety and well-being of minors.

6. Relevance in the Field of Law:
This case highlights several critical legal principles that have far-reaching implications for the interpretation and application of child protection laws in India. Firstly, the case reinforces the strict liability nature of the POCSO Act. The Act is designed to protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, and any sexual activity involving a minor is punishable, regardless of consent. This principle ensures that minors are protected from potential coercion and exploitation, even in cases where the relationship may appear consensual.

Secondly, the case underscores the limits of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that courts must adhere to legislative intent and cannot deviate from the statutory framework based on personal beliefs or societal observations. This principle is crucial in maintaining the integrity and consistency of the legal system, ensuring that laws are applied uniformly and fairly.

Thirdly, the case sets a precedent regarding judicial propriety and the appropriate scope of judicial commentary in legal judgments. The Supreme Court’s mandate to refrain from making personal, moralistic, or ideological remarks ensures that judicial decisions remain focused on legal reasoning and factual evidence. This principle is essential in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and ensuring that legal decisions are based on objective criteria.

Finally, the case opens the door for policy considerations and legislative debate on the age of consent laws in India. While the Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the rigidity of current laws, it also highlights the need for potential legislative reforms to address the complexities of adolescent consensual relationships. This case serves as a catalyst for discussions on how to balance the protection of minors with the recognition of evolving social realities.

7. Personal Opinion:
The Supreme Court’s decision aligns with the strict legal framework designed to protect minors from sexual exploitation. The POCSO Act’s strict liability is essential for ensuring child protection, and allowing any exceptions could undermine the Act’s effectiveness. The Court’s emphasis on adhering to legislative intent and maintaining judicial propriety is crucial in upholding the integrity of the legal system.

However, the case also reflects a genuine tension between legal rigidity and evolving social realities. While the law must protect minors, there may be a need for legislative reforms that differentiate between exploitative and consensual adolescent relationships, similar to “Romeo and Juliet” laws in other jurisdictions. Such reforms could provide a more nuanced approach to adolescent relationships, recognizing the complexities of adolescent behavior while ensuring the protection of minors from exploitation.

The case also highlights the importance of judicial restraint and the need for courts to focus on legal reasoning rather than personal or moralistic commentary. The Supreme Court’s mandate to refrain from making personal remarks ensures that judicial decisions remain objective and based on factual evidence. This principle is essential in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and ensuring that legal decisions are based on objective criteria.

8. Conclusion:
The case of Probhat Purkait vs. The State of West Bengal serves as a landmark judgment in defining the boundaries of judicial discretion and reaffirming the strict application of child protection laws. While the Supreme Court’s decision ensures legal consistency and protection of minors, it also highlights the need for future legislative dialogue on how to address consensual relationships among adolescents within the existing legal framework. The case will undoubtedly influence future jurisprudence on both child protection and judicial propriety in India.

The case underscores the importance of adhering to legislative intent and maintaining judicial propriety in legal judgments. It also highlights the need for potential legislative reforms to address the complexities of adolescent relationships within the existing legal framework. As society continues to evolve, it is essential for the legal system to strike a balance between protecting minors and recognizing the realities of adolescent behavior. This case serves as a catalyst for ongoing discussions on how to achieve this balance while ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of child protection laws in India.

Name- Om Dambhare,
College – MNLU, Mumbai