Supreme And High Court Statements That Sparked Debates In 2021

"I'll see you in court. " that is the level of trust the public has in courts in this country. We know that when nobody believes us, these courts will listen to us. The judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts carry with them the huge responsibility of keeping aside their personal views and deciding what's right and what's wrong. While these bodies hold important authority and responsibility and set precedents there have been times when fingers have been pointed at certain orders that have been made by them.

The judgements and orders set benchmarks. Therefore the justices have to be careful about the statements they make. As the year comes to an end here is a list of controversial Supreme and High Court statements that sparked debates in 2021.

Controversial Supreme And High Court Statements in 2021

'Lack Of Quality Debate In Parliament While Enacting Laws' -CJI

In August this year, Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana remarked on the sorry state of affairs in Parliament and how the laws that are passed are full of ambiguity. He called discussions after Independence constructive. While today there are constructive discussions in Parliament and there is a lack of lawyers and intellectuals in the House.

'Groping a minor's breast without "skin to skin contact" cannot be termed as sexual assault'- Bombay High Court

During the hearing of a POCSO act case, Justice Pushpa Ganediwala of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court said that groping of the breasts of a 12-year old girl by a man was not a sexual assault as there was no 'skin-to-skin contact. The Justice, later on, passed a statement in another POCSO case that holding the hand of a 5-year-old and unzipping her trouser was not a sexual assault and dropped the allegations on the accused. The Supreme Court disregarded her 'no skin contact' remark and declined her permanent judge status claiming that she need more exposure.

'TV debates cause more pollution'- CJI Ramana

While hearing the case of a student on the dirty air of Delhi, CJI Ramana lashed out at the media when Solicitor Tushar Mehta said that he was accused on TV debate of misleading the court over the impact of stubble burning on Delhi's pollution. To this, CJI said that the court is not misled and TV debates cause more pollution.

'Oral sex with a minor does not come under the 'aggravated sexual assault' category under the POCSO Act'- Allahabad HC

The case that was being discussed was of a man forcing a 10-year old boy to perform oral sex on him. The POCSO act states 10 years imprisonment for 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' but justice Anil Kumar Ojha said that the case was of 'penetrative sexual assault' and reduced the sentence of the accused to 7 years.

"Will you marry her?" To A Rape Accused- SC

Former CJI SA Bobde's question "will you marry her?" to a man who was seeking protection from arrest in a rape case faced heavy backlash from people. The man identified as Mohit Subhash Chavan, a technician with the Maharashtra State Electric Production Company allegedly raped a schoolgirl and was facing charges under the POSCO. CJI Bobde later on clarified that the court respects women and the statement was not in any way justifying marital rape, instead, it was a question.

'Could sex between a married couple ever be considered rape?'- SC

Former CJI SA Bobde in March said, "When two people are living as husband and wife, however brutal the husband is, can the act of sexual intercourse between them be called rape?"

The statement came about a case where he allegedly made a false promise of marrying a &t=36s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">woman and having sexual intercourse with her. India still does not acknowledge marital rape as a crime.

'Live-in Relationships Morally, Socially Unacceptable' - Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana HC justice HC Madaan passed this statement while hearing the plea of a couple who was living together and intending to get married but they wanted protection from the court against the girl's family who was allegedly trying to kill them. The court said that live-in relationships are unacceptable and hence, no protection can be provided to the couple from the court.

Suggested Readings:- 

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Meghalaya Woman After Two Years Of No Trial