Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
Is Sex Education Part Of Curriculum In Higher Secondary Schools: Supreme Court Seeks Affidavit From UP Govt
|The Supreme Court said that young adolescents should be made aware of the hormonal changes that come with puberty and its consequences.
The Supreme Court ordered the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an additional counter affidavit on the issue whether sex education is being provided as a part of the curriculum in higher secondary schools within the State of Uttar Pradesh.
An SLP was filed by a Juvenile against the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the revision petition seeking bail, among other things.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “We are of the opinion that an additional counter affidavit/reply would be required to enable the State to inform us as to whether sex education is provided as a part of the curriculum in higher secondary schools within the State of Uttar Pradesh, so that young adolescents are made aware of the hormonal changes that come with puberty and the consequences that may flow therefrom.”
AOR V. N. Raghupathy represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Abhishek Saket represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
An FIR was lodged against the Juvenile under Sections 376, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for committing the rape of a minor girl studying in class 10th. It was alleged that the minor girl and the Juvenile were friends and he asked the minor girl to accompany him to his house. The Juvenile committed rape upon her and threatened to murder her in case she disclosed the incident to anyone. Later, the minor girl was found to be pregnant.
However, it was contended that the incident was that of consensual relationship and FIR was lodged after a delay of 2.5 months.
A Revision Petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court and it was observed, “After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the revisionist is named in the F.I.R. Allegations against him is of taking away the victim to his house and then committing rape upon her. It cannot be said that he is not knowing about the incident and was not aware of consequence of it. Consent of a minor is of no worth. No case for bail in favour of the revisionist is made out.”
Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, an SLP was filed before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Bench ordered the State to file an additional counter affidavit/reply on whether sex education is provided as a part of the curriculum in higher secondary schools within the State of Uttar Pradesh, so that young adolescents are made aware of the hormonal changes that come with puberty and the consequences that may flow therefrom.
Accordingly, the matter was listed before the Supreme Court on September 10, 2025.
Cause Title: Juvenile(X) V. State of U.P (SLP No. 10915 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: V. N. Raghupathy, AOR and Advocates Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Mythili S, M. Bangaraswamy, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli.
Respondent: AOR Manisha and Advocates Abhishek Saket, Sudeep Kumar, Rupali, Ananya Rai, Adv