SC slams HC for calling rape of 14-year-old a 'romantic relationship'

A 25-year-old man had a baby with a 14-year-old girl. The High Court called it a 'romantic relationship' and set him free. The Supreme Court just reversed that—and here's why.

The Supreme Court did not merely restore a conviction on August 20, 2024. It drew a line the Calcutta High Court had erased—a line that says a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex, no matter how the relationship is dressed up in language. A bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka delivered the judgment.

When a pregnancy became a 'relationship'

In 2018, a 14-year-old girl left her parents' home. She began living with a 25-year-old man. She became pregnant. She gave birth to a daughter. The man was the biological father.

The girl's mother filed an FIR (a written complaint that starts a police investigation) at Baruipur police station on May 29, 2018. The police arrested the accused in 2021—a delay the Supreme Court noted with concern. By then, the child was already born.

A Special Judge under the POCSO Act (the law protecting children from sexual offences) convicted the man on January 1, 2023. The charges: aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim was 14. Under the law, that was all that mattered.

The High Court's strange reasoning

The man appealed. The Calcutta High Court used its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution (the High Court's writ jurisdiction to do justice) and Section 482 of the CrPC (the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process) to acquit him. The reasoning: this was a "non-exploitative consensual relationship."

The judgment did not stop there. It filled pages with personal opinions about adolescent sexuality, the duties of female adolescents, and hormonal biology. It looked less like a legal decision and more like a moral essay.

The Supreme Court would later say: "A judgment must be confined to deciding the controversy based on evidence and law. It cannot contain personal opinions of judges on various subjects, advisory content, or preaching. Brevity is the hallmark of quality judgment."

The one question that wrecked the High Court's logic

The Supreme Court cut through the fog with a single legal provision: Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, specifically the clause marked "sixthly."

Under this clause, penetrative intercourse with a woman under 18 years constitutes rape—whether she consents or not. The law does not ask if the relationship was "romantic." It does not ask if the girl "willingly" participated. It does not ask if the man was "non-exploitative." The only question is her age.

The girl was 14. The man was 25. Under the law, the conversation ends there.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's concept of a "non-exploitative consensual relationship" has no basis in law. It is legally irrelevant. A child cannot consent to sex. A "romantic relationship" with a 14-year-old is, by definition, rape.

Why the High Court's power had limits

The High Court had invoked its inherent powers to set aside the conviction. The Supreme Court shut that door firmly.

The ratio (the court's central reasoning) was clear: when offences of rape under Section 376 IPC and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 POCSO Act are proved, the High Court cannot use its writ or inherent jurisdiction to acquit the accused—regardless of any consensual relationship or welfare considerations. These powers exist to prevent abuse of process, not to override statutory law.

The Supreme Court also cited the precedent of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which had already established that heinous offences like rape cannot be quashed even on grounds of settlement between the accused and the victim.

The State's failure to protect

The Supreme Court did not stop at reversing the acquittal. It turned its gaze on the State of West Bengal.

Under Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, read with several provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015—including Sections 29, 30, 36, 39, and 46—the State has a mandatory obligation to ensure care, protection, rehabilitation, and social reintegration of child victims of sexual offences.

The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) (the body responsible for protecting children in need) must act proactively. The victim in this case had been abandoned by her mother and was living with the man who had raped her. Where was the State? The Supreme Court noted the failure and issued directions to ensure compliance.

What the court actually ordered

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's judgment, except for the part that acquitted the accused under Sections 363 and 366 IPC (kidnapping and enticing). The conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n)/(3) of the IPC was restored.

The man will serve his sentence. But the judgment's real weight lies in what it says about the limits of judicial discretion.

THE PLAY: If a case involves a victim under 18, the word "consent" must never appear in a judgment. The law does not recognise it.

The judgment that judges will read twice

Justice Oka's bench delivered a message every High Court judge in India must absorb: a judgment is not a platform for personal philosophy. It is not a lecture hall. It is a decision on evidence and law.

The Calcutta High Court's judgment was neither brief nor legal. It was a collection of opinions dressed as a judicial order. The Supreme Court stripped those clothes away and left the law standing bare: a 14-year-old cannot consent. A baby born to a child is proof of a crime, not a relationship.

The girl who was 14 in 2018 is now 20. Her daughter is five. The law just caught up with what should have been obvious from the start.