Supreme Court uses Article 142 to quash POCSO conviction, noting the marriage and settled life of the accused and victim.

Invoking Rare Constitutional Power To Deliver “Complete Justice”

In a remarkable judgment that underscores the Supreme Court’s power to render “complete justice,” the apex court quashed the conviction and sentence of a man previously found guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, after taking note of his subsequent marriage to the victim and their harmonious family life.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, observing that while the relationship between the appellant and the victim technically attracted the provisions of the POCSO Act, the peculiar circumstances of the case merited a compassionate approach.

“The crime was not the result of lust but love,” the Court noted, adding that the accused and the victim had since married and had a child together.

Case Background

The appellant was convicted for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act by a trial court. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that both parties were now married and living peacefully with their child, and that continuing his incarceration would destroy the family unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim and their child.

During the proceedings, the Court took note of affidavits and social investigation reports confirming that the victim, now an adult, had voluntarily married the accused and expressed her desire to continue the marital relationship.

Article 142: The Power To Do “Complete Justice”

The Supreme Court’s decision rested on the invocation of Article 142, a rare constitutional provision that empowers the Court to pass any decree necessary to do “complete justice” in a case.

While Article 142 has been used sparingly—typically in cases involving extraordinary humanitarian or constitutional considerations—this judgment marks a notable extension of its application to criminal justice under special statutes like POCSO.

Legal observers point out that such reliefs are “case-specific” and should not be construed as precedent for legitimising relationships involving minors.

“Article 142 cannot be used to dilute statutory safeguards,” noted senior advocate Aparna Bhat, adding that the Court’s emphasis on the couple’s continued relationship reflects a sensitive balancing of legal principle and social reality.

POCSO Act: Balancing Protection and Autonomy

Enacted in 2012, the POCSO Act was designed to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, with stringent punishments and a zero-tolerance approach. However, this case reignites the ongoing legal and ethical debate on whether the Act, in its blanket criminalisation, adequately distinguishes between exploitative conduct and consensual adolescent relationships that later mature into marriages.

The judgment refrains from undermining the statute’s spirit but subtly signals the judiciary’s awareness of the complex intersection between law, consent, and evolving social contexts.

A senior legal analyst told The Legal Observer that the ruling “does not set a precedent for condoning child marriage but rather reflects judicial pragmatism in addressing unintended consequences of rigid statutory interpretation.”

Court’s Conditional Relief

While granting relief, the Supreme Court imposed a specific condition on the appellant: he must not desert his wife and child and must maintain them with dignity for life. Any breach, the Court cautioned, could invite “serious consequences.”

This unusual stipulation highlights the Court’s intent to ensure that judicial compassion does not translate into moral impunity, reaffirming that justice must serve both legal order and human dignity.

Broader Implications and Reactions

The decision has sparked wide discussion in the legal fraternity and among social reform advocates. Some hail it as a humanitarian gesture recognising social realities, while others caution against blurring statutory lines meant to protect minors.

Nevertheless, the judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s ability to exercise constitutional flexibility where mechanical application of law would cause more harm than good.

“Justice tempered with empathy is not weakness; it is wisdom,” remarked legal scholar Dr. S.K. Sharma, during a discussion on The Legal Observer YouTube Channel.

Read More:

Stay informed with related coverage at
The Legal Observer – National News and explore insights on judicial discretion under The Legal Observer – Views: Insight.