Attorney General for India v. Satish
| Attorney General for India v. Satish | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Full case name | Attorney General for India v. Satish & Anr |
| Decided | November 18, 2021 |
| Citation | 2021 INSC 762 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Bela M. Trivedi |
| Concurrence | S. Ravindra Bhat |
| Laws applied | |
This case overturned a previous ruling | |
| Satish v. State of Maharashtra (2021) and Libnus v. State of Maharashtra (2021) | |
Attorney General for India v. Satish & Anr (2021 INSC 762) is a landmark criminal case considered by the Supreme Court of India considering the POCSO Act, a law for the protection of children in India. The judgement is considered significant for definitively establishing "sexual intent" as the primary ingredient for establishing sexual assault against the children under the act, thereby restoring the protective framework intended by the POCSO Act.
The case arose from a Bombay High Court Nagpur bench judgement ruling that groping a minor’s breast without removing clothing did not constitute sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The ruling, also known as the "skin-to-skin contact" judgement, caused widespread outrage and was appealed to the higher court. On November 18, 2021 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India unanimously overturned the high court decision.
Background
[edit]The case emerged out of several rulings in January 2021 by Justice Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala, an additional judge of the Bombay High Court, relating to the sexual assault of minors. In the first case, Ganediwala adjudicated an appeal against a trial court that had convicted a 39-year-old man of taking a 12-year-old female child to his home on the pretext of offering her food and sexually assaulting her. The trial court had sentenced the offender to three years in prison under the POSCO Act but Ganediwala commuted the sentence holding that while the man had committed the offense of 'outraging a woman's modesty' under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, it did not amount to a sexual offense against a child because he had groped her through her clothing. Ganediwala ruled that for an offense to qualify as sexual assault under the POCSO Act, there had to be "...skin to skin contact with sexual intent." In two other cases, Ganediwala similarly held that lack of physical contact did not constitute a POCSO offence,[1] and that lack of violent struggle indicated that an assault could not have been non-consensual.[2][3]
Ganediwala's decisions attracted wide attention and criticism.[4][5][6] The first judgement, referred to as the 'skin-to-skin contact' judgement,[7] was notably criticised.[8][9] Following the widespread outrage, Attorney General of India mentioned the ruling before the Supreme Court, noting that it warranted the Court's attention and describing it as a "...very disturbing conclusion." The Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter suo motu and temporarily stayed the judgment.[10]
The judgement was formally appealed by the Attorney General, as well as National Commission for Women, and the State of Maharashtra to the Supreme Court of India; with a counter-appeal by the appellant-accused Satish. Due to similar contextual legal issues, the court heard all four appeals together.[11]
Judgement
[edit]The judgement was rendered by a three-judge bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi. The unanimous judgement overturned the two judgements by the Justice Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala and ordered the accused to surrender before the special courts. The majority opinion was written by Justice Bela M. Trivedi with a concurring opinion by S. Ravindra Bhat.[12]
Bela M. Trivedi and Uday Umesh Lalit
[edit]The key issue considered by the court was the interpretation of Section 7 of the POSCO Act that defines and addresses sexual assault against children. In her judgement, Justice Bela M. Trivedi relied on several precedents and legal principles to reason that the interpretation of "physical contact" to mean "skin to skin contact" would be an "absurd interpretation of the said provision [contained in Section 7] and lead to a very detrimental situation."[11] She also rejected the arguments for rule of lenity and esjusdem genris by the accused, holding that there was no obscurity or uncertainty in the provisions of the POCSO Act and an interpretation otherwise would "defeat the very legislative intent."[13]
S. Ravindra Bhat
[edit]Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in his separate concurring opinion referenced the mischief rule noting that "it is no part of any judge’s duty to strain the plain words of the statute, beyond recognition and to the point of destruction."[13]
See also
[edit]- Child abuse in India
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
- List of landmark court decisions in India
References
[edit]- ^ Saigal, Sonam (28 January 2021). "Bombay High Court judge quashes another POCSO conviction". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 29 January 2021.
- ^ Joshi, Neha. "Bombay High Court acquits rape convict after victim's testimony fails to inspire confidence". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
- ^ Vidya. "Bombay HC acquits man of rape, says impossible for a single man to gag victim, remove her clothes without scuffle". India Today. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
- ^ "Not sexual assault if minor is groped without skin to skin contact, intent: HC". Hindustan Times. 24 January 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
- ^ Hakim, Sharmeen (24 January 2021). "Pressing Breasts Without Disrobing Not 'Sexual Assault' As Per POCSO Act But Offence Under Sec 354 IPC : Bombay High Court". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
- ^ Joshi, Neha. "Groping 12-year-old child without removing her clothes not 'sexual assault' under POCSO Act, but only 'outraging modesty' under IPC: Bombay HC". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
- ^ "Groping 'Without Skin-To-Skin Contact' Does Not Qualify As Sexual Assault: Bombay HC". Outlook India. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
- ^ "'Ruling will have cascading effects': NCW to challenge Bombay High Court's groping judgment". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ PTI (25 January 2021). "Obnoxious, unacceptable, outrageous: Activists on Bombay HC judgement". The Times of India. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ "Attorney General For India v. Satish and Another". Supreme Court Cases. 22 November 2021. Retrieved 24 July 2025.
- ^ a b "Attorney General For India vs Satish on 18 November, 2021". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 24 July 2025.
- ^ Bhardwaj, Prachi (19 November 2021). "POCSO| "Touch", "physical contact" can't be restricted to "skin to skin contact"; "sexual intent" is the key. SC reverses Bombay HC's "dangerous precedent"". SCC Times. Retrieved 24 July 2025.
- ^ a b "ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA VS SATISH RAGDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1410 OF 2021 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 925 OF 2021)". The Amikus Qriae. 5 March 2024. Retrieved 25 July 2025.