[POCSO Act] A brother and sister opposed each other: Supreme Court on Sidharth Luthra and Geeta Luthra- 18.11.2021

While Sidharth Luthra appeared as amicus curiae to put forth his views in favour of the accused, Geeta Luthra represented the National Commission for Women.

During the course of arguments before the Court, Sidharth Luthra argued that a conviction under Section 7 of the POCSO Act required touch. However, the second part of the provision that stated, “any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent...” needed to be clarified. He submitted, “The point that I’m trying to make is, we have two words which are very important which need to be considered. Word in Section 7 is “sexual intent” and “physical contact”. So sexual intent will require physical contact.”

Geeta Luthra, on the other hand, argued that “touch” and “physical contact” are synonyms and there cannot be differentiation in their interpretation.

The apex court set aside the High Court ruling which had held that pressing the breast of a child without removing her clothes will not amount to 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act since there was no “skin-to-skin” contact.

The most important ingredient of for constituting the offence of sexual assault is sexual intent and not skin to skin contact with the child. Construction of a rule should give effect to rule rather than destroying it. The intention of legislature cannot be given effect to unless wider interpretation is given,"