<p>Two recent judgements of the Supreme Court — one in an attempt to murder a case and the other in a POCSO case — have violated the letter and spirit of the law. In one case, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Hima Kohli set free a person who had been convicted for attempting to murder a person but had later married the victim’s sister. The court said he was freed in order to bring peace to the family and the locality and to enable the couple to live cordially. In the other case, a man who had been convicted of raping his minor niece was let off by the court. The man had later married the victim. The ground cited by the bench of Justices Nageshwara Rao and B R Gavai to free him was that there was the custom of avuncular marriage in Tamil Nadu and that it did not want to “disturb” their marriage and “happy family life”. The court issued the rulings under Article 142, which gives it discretionary powers. </p>.<p>Both judgements were based on considerations that should have had no place in law. The powers under Article 142 are to be used by the court to do “complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”, but in these cases, the discretion used has weakened the cause of justice. A crime should not go unpunished because a convict’s presence in a locality brings peace there or because his wife would live happily with him there. This might mean that an accused can avoid punishment by marrying someone in the victim’s family. The judgement is wrong in its reasoning and bad for its likely impact. The argument that there were peculiar circumstances in the case is not valid, because particular circumstances may be found in other cases and used as loopholes. </p>.<p>The second judgement is equally wrong as it has absolved a person convicted of a POCSO crime. Rape is a heinous crime and when the victim is a minor, the punishment should be more stringent. The court badly erred in setting the convict free in the case. Custom is no ground to escape from the law. India is a country with diverse customs, but the law overrides them. Triple talaq and child marriage are old customs, but they are illegal. The Supreme Court has in the past frowned on ideas like the marriage between a rape accused and the victim. This judgement presents a contrary message. The two judgements should be reviewed in the interest of justice, and the law should be upheld over bad custom. </p>
<p>Two recent judgements of the Supreme Court — one in an attempt to murder a case and the other in a POCSO case — have violated the letter and spirit of the law. In one case, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Hima Kohli set free a person who had been convicted for attempting to murder a person but had later married the victim’s sister. The court said he was freed in order to bring peace to the family and the locality and to enable the couple to live cordially. In the other case, a man who had been convicted of raping his minor niece was let off by the court. The man had later married the victim. The ground cited by the bench of Justices Nageshwara Rao and B R Gavai to free him was that there was the custom of avuncular marriage in Tamil Nadu and that it did not want to “disturb” their marriage and “happy family life”. The court issued the rulings under Article 142, which gives it discretionary powers. </p>.<p>Both judgements were based on considerations that should have had no place in law. The powers under Article 142 are to be used by the court to do “complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”, but in these cases, the discretion used has weakened the cause of justice. A crime should not go unpunished because a convict’s presence in a locality brings peace there or because his wife would live happily with him there. This might mean that an accused can avoid punishment by marrying someone in the victim’s family. The judgement is wrong in its reasoning and bad for its likely impact. The argument that there were peculiar circumstances in the case is not valid, because particular circumstances may be found in other cases and used as loopholes. </p>.<p>The second judgement is equally wrong as it has absolved a person convicted of a POCSO crime. Rape is a heinous crime and when the victim is a minor, the punishment should be more stringent. The court badly erred in setting the convict free in the case. Custom is no ground to escape from the law. India is a country with diverse customs, but the law overrides them. Triple talaq and child marriage are old customs, but they are illegal. The Supreme Court has in the past frowned on ideas like the marriage between a rape accused and the victim. This judgement presents a contrary message. The two judgements should be reviewed in the interest of justice, and the law should be upheld over bad custom. </p>
