Supreme Court intervention plea highlights NGO opposition to lowering the age of consent from 18 to 16, warning of child abuse, paternity complications, exploitation, and pedophilia risks under Indian law.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that saying “I love you” without sexual intent doesn’t attract POCSO charges, upholding the youth’s acquittal due to lack of evidence.
A Mumbai court granted bail to a woman booked under the POCSO Act, observing a ‘consensual relationship’ between teacher and student. Sexual assault charges remain under investigation.
Allahabad High Court acquitted a man jailed for 9 years for rape, citing a lack of evidence and misuse of law in family property disputes. The judge warned of rising false abuse claims to settle personal scores or grab assets.
Parole granted on humanitarian grounds to enable the convict to support his ailing wife and minor children. Supreme Court emphesised that the junior lawyers must thoroughly know the case before appearing and learn legal practice at trial court level.
Today, On 23rd May, Using its special powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court acquitted a man earlier convicted under the POCSO Act for having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl, citing the need to deliver complete justice.
As we step into May , it’s essential to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of April 2025 of Supreme court. This month witnessed a series of significant rulings that have shaped legal discourse across various domains.
Calcutta High Court Yesterday (April 26) suspended conviction of man jailed for 12 years under POCSO Act. Court says evidence shows aggravated sexual assault, not attempted rape.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the POCSO case against Asianet News, acknowledging the channel’s responsible reporting on drug abuse. The court stated that the channel “deserved recognition” for its work, and emphasized that no further proceedings would be pursued at the Special POCSO Court in Kozhikode.
A Delhi court acquitted a man accused of raping a student, stating that the victim was in a “love relationship” with him. The court found no strong evidence to prove the charges against the accused. It observed that their relationship appeared to be consensual. The verdict highlights the importance of clear legal proof in such cases.
