Breaking: Youth Bar Association of India Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bombay High Court's 'Skin To Skin' POCSO Judgment

The special leave petition filed through AOR Manju Jetley states that such observations would have a wide impact on the entire society and public at large, and has urged the Top Court to set-aside/ expunge the same.

In the impugned judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court held that such an act would amount to 'molestation' under Section 354 of IPC and not Sexual assault under section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The Single bench of Justice Pushpa Ganediwala made this observation while modifying the order of the Sessions Court which held a 39-year-old man guilty of sexual assault for groping a 12- year- old- girl and removing her salwar.

The Petitioners state the observations made by the Single Judge are "unwarranted" and concern the modesty of a girl child.

It is also stated while passing the impugned judgment, the Single Judge recorded the name of the victim child in paragraph no. 12, which is detrimental and against the spirit of section 228A of IPC which bars publication of names of victims of certain offences.

Further, in paragraph no. 26 of the impugned order, the Single Judge had held that "there is no direct physical contact i.e. skin to skin with sexual intent without penetration". Such reasoning, as per the Petitioner, would lead to a dastardly situation and would lower the repute of the entire nation.

The petition is drafted by Advocate Sanpreet Singh Ajmani.

Few days earlier, the National Commission for Women (NCW) had announced that it will challenge the impugned judgment, stating that the same will not only have cascading effect on various provisions involving safety and security of women in general but also put all the women under ridicule and has trivialized the legal provisions provided by the legislature for the safety and security of women.

Meanwhile, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has asked the Maharashtra Government to file an "urgent appeal" against the impugned judgment. The NCPCR chief in his letter underlined that it seems that the identity of the victim has been disclosed and the commission is of the view that the state should take note of this and initiate necessary steps.