Supreme Court to Hear NCW's Plea Against Bombay High Court Skin to Skin Contact Verdict

Supreme Court to Hear NCW's Plea Against Bombay High Court Skin to Skin Contact Verdict

The National Commission for Women (NCW) filed a plea before the Supreme Court of India (SC) wherein it stated that if such a perverse interpretation of physical contact is permitted then it will adversely impact the basic rights of women.

The Top Court agreed to hear the plea filed by the NCW wherein it challenged the verdict passed by the Bombay High Court (HC) that stated groping a minor without 'skin to skin contact' cannot be considered as sexual assault according to the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The NCW mentioned in its plea that if such an act is permitted then "perverse interpretation of physical contact is allowed, it will adversely impact the basic rights of women, who are victims of sexual offences in the society and will undermine the beneficial statutory safeguards prescribed under various legislations aimed at protecting the interest of women."

The petition further reads "The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, and the perverse interpretation adopted by the high court that the term 'physical contact' in section 7 POCSO Act means only 'skin to skin touch".

The NCW submitted that if such a "narrow interpretation" is adopted by the HC then it would set a dangerous precedent which would have a "cascading effect on the safety of women and children".

The HC passed a controversial verdict wherein it stated that since the man groped the child without removing her clothes, the offence cannot be termed as sexual assault but it does constitute the offence of outraging a woman's modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The order of a Sessions Court was modified by the HC. The Sessions Court had sentenced a 39-year-old man to three years of imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.

On 27 January 2021, the SC had put a stay of HC's verdict after Attorney General K.K. Venugopal mentioned the matter before the Apex Court and stated that the judgment was "unprecedented" and was likely to set a "dangerous precedent".

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde issued notice to Maharashtra Government whereby it sought response from the State Government on the NCW's plea.

The bench of the SC also comprised Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian. The Apex Court issued notice to the accused in the case on a separate plea filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the HC.

The bench raised a question to the Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, who appeared on behalf of NCW, that why the Court should entertain a separate plea when it has already stayed the HC's verdict and the accused is in jail.

To the said question the Senior Advocate referred to the provision of the NCW Act and she mentioned that the Statute provides that the Commission should move to Court for correction in case such an issue arises.

Attorney General Venugopal submitted that the HC's verdict has stayed and several new petitions have been filed in the matter. He further mentioned that notices be issued on the new pleas filed against the HC's judgment.