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

While delivering its verdict on the challenge to the Bombay High Court's 'skin to skin' judgment, the Supreme Court today observed that the brother and sister duo of Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Geeta Luthra had opposed each other in the case..The Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Bela Trivedi observed,"This time a brother and sister also opposed each other.".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 (NCW), which was one of the parties that filed an appeal against the controversial High Court judgment..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..Today, 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 law has to be given an interpretation that gives effect to the intention of legislature instead of defeating it, the Court underscored."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," the Court said.