Poonam Sharma
The recent verdict delivered by Justice Pushpa Ganediwala of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has caused a stir nationwide. The contentious ruling in the case of sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl, where the accused was acquitted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, has sent alarm bells ringing throughout the nation. The court held that the act of fondling the breast of the child over the clothing did not constitute “sexual assault” because there was no “skin-to-skin” contact. However, the accused was convicted of an offense under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a far lesser one.
This ruling has not only shocked legal experts but also deeply unsettled the public, leaving us with one pressing question: If the legal system cannot protect our children in the face of such clear violations, how will our daughters be safe? This judgment is not just a legal mistake; it is a failure of justice, an abdication of responsibility, and a grave threat to the safety of minors in India.
The judgment of Justice Ganediwala is based on a farcical and perilous reading of what is sexual assault. For the judge, for a conduct to be deemed sexual assault under the POCSO Act, there needs to be “skin-to-skin” contact. This is not only restrictive but also stunningly removed from the nature of child sexual abuse. The law specifically provides that any sexual assault must be accompanied by physical contact with the child, such as but not limited to touching the child’s private areas. By adding this proviso of “skin-to-skin” contact, the judge essentially downgrades the act of groping, which is in itself an invasion of the child’s bodily autonomy.
This reading is a dangerous precedent, as it now suggests that a perpetrator can avoid consequences for groping a child, so long as they are not actually touching the skin. The suggestion that sexual assault can be excused or reduced on the grounds of the lack of skin-to-skin contact is repulsive and highly disturbing. It implies that the trauma and injury inflicted upon a child by such an act are less intense in some way if there was no actual physical contact. This judgment is an abandonment of the duty of care which the judiciary owes to the most vulnerable in our society—our children.
The ruling sends a profoundly unsettling message to society: that groping a child—whether the abuser is or is not touching her skin—is not sexual assault according to the POCSO Act. This is an epic failure to understand the full range of harm caused to children who are subjected to such abuse. The decision works counter to the very intent of the POCSO Act, which was enacted to provide children with the maximum protection against sexual offenses.
What message are we giving to society by letting such a decision prevail? Are we informing criminals that they can rape a child and go scot-free as long as they don’t make skin contact? Are we informing children that their pain and suffering would only be heard if the attack is physically more invasive? This decision downplays sexual assault and provides an opportunity for attackers to use legal technicalities to avoid punishment.
This ruling only encourages predators and undermines the legal system intended to safeguard children. The inability of the court to recognize the seriousness of the offense is a direct threat to the safety and welfare of children everywhere. How can we trust our judiciary to safeguard our daughters if they downplay such egregious violations?
What Will Happen to Our Daughters?
In a society where the security of children is ever under danger from all manner of abuse, we cannot do without such legal mistakes. The very pillar of the judicial system is trust—the trust that it will safeguard the most vulnerable in our society. If the courts won’t safeguard children in cases so clear as this, how are we to be sure that we can safely keep our daughters in more complicated cases?
Our daughters are more than bodies that can be grabbed at any whim; they are human beings deserving of respect, dignity, and safety. When a court undercuts an assault like this one, it signals to both the world and to the offender that the victim’s trauma comes after the victim and the perpetrator themselves. Such verdicts deny the emotional, psychological, and bodily damage caused to a child by sexual assault. It is not for the details of how the attack was committed; it is about the desecration of the child’s space and dignity, something that should never be subjected to any child.
A Call for Judicial Responsibility
This decision cannot hold water. The courts of law need to be taken to task over issuing verdicts that put the lives and security of children in danger. Justice Ganediwala’s ruling is an act of failing to implement the law in a manner that preserves the protection of children. The POCSO Act was enacted with the intent of protecting children from sexual crimes to the largest extent possible. It is a statute that was intended to give a strong message that any abuse of a child’s body would be taken extremely seriously, regardless of the type of contact.
If this decision is permitted to stand, it will give a perilous message to the public and the legal profession that child sexual abuse can be watered down or even justified on technical grounds. This isn’t just a legal mistake—it’s a moral failing. Better than that, our children deserve. They deserve judges who will take offenders to task and send a strong message that sexual abuse of any kind will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
The Need for Reform
This ruling demands immediate change in the way the judiciary deals with cases of child sexual abuse. The POCSO Act must be interpreted in line with its original purpose—to safeguard children from any kind of sexual exploitation or abuse. The law should not be twisted or manipulated to favor the accused, particularly when it involves crimes as abhorrent as sexual assault.
In addition, the judicial process needs to be more active in its role to safeguard children. Judges need training to appreciate the psychological and emotional damage inflicted by sexual crimes, and their decisions need to indicate a dedication to ensuring the safety of children over everything else.
We Must Demand Better
Our kids are worth a better legal system than one that offers loopholes for their offenders. The judicial ruling by Justice Ganediwala is unacceptable and must be overturned. It is time for us to ask for more from our judiciary—a system which should serve to protect, not erode, the rights of the most vulnerable. It is time for a judicial reform that puts our children’s safety and well-being first. Less than that is a failure of justice, and a betrayal of our responsibility to safeguard the next generation.
The post The Bombay High Court’s Blunder: Protecting Children or Protecting Predators? appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates.
