Supreme Court: Big decision of the Supreme Court said that the judge should not be arbitrary while g

Supreme Court: Big decision of the Supreme Court said that the judge should not be arbitrary while giving the decision, the statement of Calcutta High Court said that adolescent girls should control their sexual desires.

 On October 20, the Calcutta High Court, while hearing a case, had said that adolescent girls should control their sexual desires, taking two minutes of pleasure is a disgrace in the eyes of the society. Such a statement was given by the court when

 The case of POCSO Act i.e. Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act came before the Calcutta High Court.

 In the Supreme Court on Friday 8th December regarding this matter.

 The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mittal, while hearing the case, objected to the decision of the High Court and while taking cognizance, ruled that such statement of the Calcutta High Court is a violation of the rights of teenagers and Article 21 of the Constitution.

 Objection to what the High Court judge said.

 The Supreme Court bench told the judge of Calcutta High Court that judges of lower courts cannot be expected to express their views while giving the verdict in such a way that it sends a wrong message to the society. Along with this, the SC issued a notice to the state government asking that if any appeal has been filed against the decision, then it should be informed.

 The culprit was released in the case.

 The bench of Justice Chittaranjan Das and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen of the Calcutta High Court heard the case and while acquitting the boy in the case of sexual assault on his minor girlfriend, remarked that since both were teenagers, they were in a love relationship, hence the culprit was punished. Relationships were done with consent. And at the same time they told the teenagers to control their sexual desires.

 Whereas its first dispute was in the District Court in which the boy was convicted under the POCSO Act and sentenced to 20 years. He approached the High Court against this decision, on which the High Court advised the boys that teenagers should respect the dignity and physical autonomy of girls and women.