Summary
Suo motu proceedings taken up in 2019 on the rise in reported child rape cases, in which the Court had earlier directed the creation of centrally funded exclusive POCSO courts and prompt forensic reporting, were closed. Noting from the amicus's status chart that most States had set up exclusive courts but several still needed more, the Court reiterated that the statutory timelines for investigation and trial under the POCSO Act must be adhered to as far as possible.
Issues
- Whether, having regard to the status of compliance with the Court's earlier directions on exclusive POCSO courts, forensic laboratories and prosecutors, the suo motu proceedings should continue or be closed.
Provisions considered
- Statutory timelines for investigation, filing of chargesheet and completion of trial, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The Court observed that the Act stipulates timelines for every stage from investigation to trial and that these were not being maintained because of the inadequate number of exclusive POCSO courts; it expected the Union and the States to sensitise investigating officials, create dedicated courts on priority and ensure chargesheets and trials are completed within the statutory periods. (¶¶ 2, 6)
Held
- The directions issued on 25.07.2019 required an exclusive special court in every district with more than 100 POCSO cases, funded under a Central scheme covering presiding officers, support persons, Special Public Prosecutors, staff and child-friendly infrastructure, with care in selecting child-sensitive support persons and prosecutors, an awareness clip in cinema halls and on television, and effective functioning of existing forensic laboratories so that reports are sent without delay. (¶ 1)
- Later orders called for State-wise information, directed the Union and the States to ensure that investigation and trial stages are completed within the POCSO timeframe, laid down parameters for exclusive POCSO courts in each State with separate criteria for Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, and addressed dedicated forensic laboratories, the shortage of Public Prosecutors and witness security in the Unnao case. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
- On the status chart submitted by the amicus curiae and senior counsel, the majority of States, with Central funding, have complied with the directions to set up exclusive POCSO courts; States such as Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa and Maharashtra still need more such courts given their pendency. (¶ 5)
- Since the POCSO Act stipulates timelines for all stages from investigation to trial, they must be adhered to as far as possible; the Union and the States are expected to sensitise investigating officials, create dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on a top-priority basis and ensure chargesheets are filed and trials completed within the mandatory periods. (¶ 6)
- Subject to these observations, the suo motu proceedings were closed, with appreciation recorded for the assistance of the amicus curiae and senior counsel. (¶¶ 7, 8)
Result
Suo motu writ petition closed, subject to the expectation that the Union of India and the State Governments create dedicated POCSO courts on priority and ensure adherence to the statutory timelines for investigation and trial.