Supreme Court’s Use of Article 142 in POCSO Cases: Balancing Legal Rigor with Substantial Justice

However, the Court was careful to establish 'guardrails' for the exercise of this extraordinary power. It noted that Article 142 cannot be used to bypass statutory law routinely. Instead, it is a 'safety valve' to be used in exceptional cases where the law, in its literal sense, fails to account for the complexities of human relationships and social realities. This is particularly relevant in POCSO cases involving 'adolescent love' or consensual relationships where the strict age-of-consent laws often lead to the criminalization of young individuals. For governance and policy, this judgment signals a need for the legislature to reconsider the rigidity of certain provisions within the POCSO Act. It highlights the ongoing tension between the need for stringent child protection laws and the necessity of judicial discretion to prevent the law from becoming an instrument of injustice. UPSC Relevance: This development is highly relevant for GS Paper II, specifically regarding the 'Structure, Organization, and Functioning of the Judiciary' and 'Significant Provisions of the Constitution.' It serves as an excellent case study for questions on judicial discretion, the scope of Article 142, and the balancing of statutory mandates with constitutional morality. Furthermore, it touches upon GS Paper IV (Ethics) regarding the conflict between law and conscience in the delivery of justice.