-
by sayum
21 December 2025 10:40 AM
“Because of the inadequacy of the number of exclusive Courts for the POCSO Cases, the said timelines mandated in the Act for completion of the trials are not being maintained.”- Today, On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the Suo Moto Writ Petition, In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents. The bench, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, concluded long-standing proceedings initiated in 2019 to tackle systemic delays and infrastructural failures in the prosecution of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
“The timelines stipulated under the POCSO Act… must be adhered to as far as possible.”
The judgment addressed the urgent need to adhere to the statutory timelines for investigation and trial stages under the POCSO Act. Expressing concern that delays in trial were due primarily to the inadequacy of exclusive POCSO courts, the Court emphasized that such delays undermine the very object of the legislation. It directed both the Union and State Governments to act immediately to remedy the infrastructural bottlenecks.
This Suo Moto case was initiated by the Supreme Court in July 2019 following widespread media reports highlighting the alarming rise in child rape cases across India. Taking judicial cognizance of this crisis, the Court registered the writ petition titled In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents.
Initially, a series of interim directions were issued. On July 25, 2019, the Court ordered the creation of exclusive POCSO courts in every district with more than 100 cases, funded by the Central Government. These courts were to be staffed with dedicated Presiding Officers, Special Public Prosecutors, support staff, and infrastructure aligned with child-friendly standards. Directions also included public awareness campaigns on child abuse and display of helpline information in schools, cinemas, and public spaces.
Despite these measures, further hearings revealed substantial non-compliance by several states, particularly Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, and Maharashtra, due to which many POCSO trials remained pending.
The key legal concern was the failure of State Governments and Union Territories to ensure timely investigation and trial as mandated by the POCSO Act. The Court reiterated: “It is therefore expected that the Union of India and the State Governments shall take appropriate steps to sensitize the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated Courts to try POCSO Cases on top priority basis…”
The Court noted that although many states had set up POCSO courts with Central funding, several others still lagged behind. Emphasizing the importance of victim-sensitive and timely justice, the bench declared that mere procedural setup without effective implementation was insufficient.
The delay in forensic reports was also recognized as a critical factor hampering swift prosecution. The Court had earlier suggested that dedicated Forensic Science Laboratories be established, but for the interim, it directed existing labs to prioritize and expedite POCSO-related analysis.
Among the notable directives reiterated or introduced during the proceedings:
Mandatory Establishment of Exclusive POCSO Courts in districts with high caseloads.
Appointment of Trained Support Persons and Prosecutors with child rights orientation.
Public Awareness Measures, including mandatory clips in cinemas and television about child abuse and the POCSO Act.
Time-bound Forensic Reports, to be ensured by State Governments and their forensic authorities.
Creation of Child-Friendly Environments in courtrooms to safeguard the psychological well-being of victims.
While noting partial compliance, the Court made it clear that ongoing inertia from certain states could not be tolerated. The court did not delve into contempt proceedings but emphasized the urgent necessity for compliance.
With deep appreciation for the contribution of the Amicus Curiae, Mr. V. Giri and Sr. Advocate Ms. Uttara Babbar, the bench concluded the proceedings: “Subject to the above, the Suo-Moto proceedings need to be closed and are hereby closed.”
The judgment represents a culmination of nearly six years of judicial intervention aimed at systemic reform in handling child sexual abuse cases. While the closure of the proceedings signals administrative progress, the Court's stern words and reiterated directives reflect that any failure to follow through would amount to denying justice to the most vulnerable.
Date of Decision: May 15, 2025
