Summary
The Supreme Court issued nationwide directions for effective and child-friendly POCSO trials. High Courts were to ensure functioning Special Courts, sensitise presiding officers, prevent unnecessary adjournments and monitor progress through judicial committees. State police chiefs were to create Special Task Forces for proper investigation and witness attendance. The Court recognised the statutory aim of completing trials within one year “as far as possible”, without converting it into an absolute deadline. The individual child victim’s medical care had been addressed separately.
Issues
- What institutional directions were required to implement speedy and child-friendly POCSO trials.
- How High Courts and police should monitor trial progress, investigation and witness attendance.
Provisions considered
- Section 35, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The child’s evidence should be recorded within thirty days of cognizance, with reasons recorded for delay, and trial completed within one year as far as possible. The Court retained the qualification while directing monitoring and avoidance of unnecessary adjournments. (¶¶ 16, 17, 23)
Held
- POCSO is gender-neutral and protects the child’s dignity, privacy and welfare throughout investigation and trial. Child-friendly procedures are central to implementing its protective purpose. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21)
- High Courts were to ensure cases were tried and disposed of by designated Special Courts, sensitise presiding officers to child protection and psychological responses, and ensure establishment and assignment of Special Courts where not already done. (¶¶ 23(i), 23(ii))
- Instructions were to require fast-tracking, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments and compliance with POCSO procedure. The Court expressly recognised the statutory qualification that trial should conclude within one year as far as possible. (¶¶ 16, 23, 23(iii))
- Chief Justices were requested to constitute three-Judge committees to regulate and monitor trial progress, or a one-Judge committee where three Judges were unavailable. (¶ 23(iv))
- State Directors General of Police or equivalent officers were to constitute Special Task Forces ensuring proper investigation and production of witnesses on scheduled trial dates. High Courts were also to provide a child-friendly atmosphere in Special Courts. (¶¶ 23(v), 23(vi))
- The infant victim’s treatment had been addressed through earlier orders and transfer to AIIMS; the Court recorded her stable condition after further surgery and the assurance of necessary medical assistance. This judgment did not itself newly award the interim compensation reported by the legal services authority. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
- The Registry was directed to communicate the order to High Court Registrars General for immediate implementation. (¶ 24)
Result
Writ petition disposed of with directions for Special Courts, judicial monitoring committees, police Special Task Forces, expeditious trials and child-friendly safeguards. Order to be communicated to all High Courts for immediate implementation.