Supreme Court: ‘The issue of two minutes of happiness… is extremely objectionable’, Supreme Court is angry with the decision of Calcutta High Court

The Supreme Court has expressed objection to the language of the Calcutta High Court’s decision in a rape case. The Supreme Court has said that some parts of the decision of the Calcutta High Court are extremely objectionable and unfair. In fact, the Calcutta High Court had said in its decision that teenage girls should control their sexual desires and should not indulge in pleasure for even two minutes. The Supreme Court has termed the use of such language as objectionable.

Supreme Court issued notice to the state government
The Supreme Court said that judges are not expected to share their personal views or give speeches. This is a complete violation of the rights of juveniles under Article 21 of the Constitution. Let us tell you that the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance and heard this matter and issued notice to the state government and others and sought their response. The Supreme Court has asked the state government whether it will hear against the High Court’s decision?

What is the matter
In fact, recently, while hearing the case related to POCSO Act, the Calcutta High Court had said in its decision that ‘Girls should keep their sexual desires under control and should not fall prey to two minutes of pleasure.’ The bench said, ‘Control sexual desires because girls fall in the eyes of the society after barely getting two minutes of pleasure.’ The High Court said that ‘It is the responsibility of young girls to maintain the integrity and dignity of their bodies.’ The court also advised boys to respect the dignity of girls and said that ‘the minds of boys should be trained in such a way that they respect women.’

In fact, the trial court had sentenced a 20-year-old youth to twenty years in jail for having physical relations with his minor girlfriend, against which the youth had appealed in the High Court. During the hearing of the petition, the minor girlfriend of the petitioner admitted that both of them had consensual physical relations and both wanted to get married. Since the victim was a minor, the court sentenced the youth under the POCSO Act. After hearing the arguments, the High Court had ordered the release of the youth but the language of its decision has been considered objectionable by the Supreme Court.