IN RE : ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS vs .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 2318

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
IN RE : ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s).1/2019
WITH
W.P.(C)No.819/2019 (PIL-W)
Decided On : 16-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv.(A.C.), Ms. Sudha Shankar,Adv., Ms. Uttara Babbar,AOR, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon,Adv., Mr. Manan Bansal,Adv., Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi,Adv., Mr. Surinder S. Rathi, Registrar(E-Committee), Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Officer
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj V. George,Adv., Ms. Shilpa Liza George,Adv., Mr. Aakarsh Kamra,AOR, Mr. Renjit V. Philip,Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta,SG, UOI Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni,ASG, Mr. S.S. Rebello,Adv., Ms. Neela Kedar Gokhale,Adv., Mr. Rajat Nair,Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,Adv., Mr. R.R. Rajesh,Adv., Ms. Arzu Paul,Adv., Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani,Adv., Ms. Shivikka Aggarwal,Adv., Ms. Riya Soni,Adv., Mr. Manish,Adv., Ms. Shradha Agrawal,Adv., Mr. Ilam Paridi,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,AOR, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav,AOR, Mr. G.S. makker,AOR
State of AP : Mr. G.N. Reddy,AOR, Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,Adv., Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi,Adv.
State of Arunachal Pradesh : Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari,AOR, Ms. Eliza Bar,Adv.
State of Assam : Ms. Diksha Rai,AOR, Ms. Palak Mahajan,Adv.
State of Bihar : Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,AOR, Ms. Bihu Sharma,Adv., Mr. Samarth Khanna,Adv., Ms. Pratishtha Vij,Adv.
High Court of Patna : Mr. P.H. Parekh,Sr.Adv., Mr. Kshtrashal Raj,Adv., Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini,Adv., Ms. Nitika Pandey,Adv., Mr. Nikhil Ramdev,Adv.
Calcutta High Court : Mr. Kunal Chatterji,AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee,Adv., Mr. Supratik Sarkar,Adv.
State of Chhattisgarh : Dr. Rajesh Pandey,Adv., Ms. Shweta Mulchandani,Adv., Ms. Tanuja Manjari Patra,Adv., Ms. Aswathi M.K.,AOR, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi,AOR, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja,Adv., Mr. Ashish Tiwari,Adv., Ms. Simran Agarwal,Adv.
High Court of Chhatisgarh : Mr. Apoorv Kurup,AOR, Ms. Upama Bhttacharjee,Adv.
Delhi High Court : Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,AOR, Mr. A. Venkatesh,Adv., Mr. Rahul Mishra,Adv., Mr. Avni Sharma,Adv., Ms. Ananya Khandelwal,Adv., Ms. Sangeetha M.R.,Adv.
State of Haryana : Dr. Monika Gusain,AOR
State of HP : Mr. Vikas Mahajan,Adv.(AAG), Mr. Vinod Sharma,AOR, Mr. Joydip Roy,Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar,Adv., Mr. Vishal Mahajan,Adv., Mr. Arun Singh,Adv.
State of Jharkhand : Mr. Gopal Prasad,AOR, Mr. Jayesh Gaurav,Adv., Mr. Shalya Agarwal,Adv.
Jharkhand High Court : Mr. Himanshu Shekhar,AOR, Mr. Parth Shekhar,Adv.
State of Goa : Mr. Arun R. Pedneker,Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kr. Sharma,Adv., Ms. Mukti Chowdhary,AOR
State of Guj. : Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka,AOR, Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy,Adv., Ms. Poonam Kaushik,Adv., Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur,Adv., Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,AOR
High Court of Guj. : Mr. Nikhil Goel,AOR, Ms. Naveen Goel,Adv., Mr. Dushyant Sarna,Adv.
State of Kar. : Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,AOR, Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta,Adv.
State of Kerala : Mr. G. Prakash,AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L.,Adv., Ms. Priyanka Prakash,Adv.
Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv.
High Court of Kerala : Mr. P.N. Ravindran,Sr.Adv., Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair,AOR
High Court of MP : Mr. Arjun Garg,AOR, Mr. Devansh Srivastav,Adv.
State of Mah. : Mr. Sachin Patil,AOR
High Court of Bombay : Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,AOR, Mr. A. Rajarajan,Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary,Adv.
State of MP : Mr. Rahul Kaushik,AOR
State of Mizoram : Ms. Astha Sharma,AOR, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,Adv., Ms. Arshiya Ghose,Adv., Mr. Divyansh Tiwari,Adv., Ms. A. Upadhyay,Adv.
State of Meghalaya : Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,AOR, Mr. Upendra Mishra,Adv., Mr. K.R. Kharlyngdoh,Adv. ,Mr. T.K. Nayak,Adv., Mr. Deniel Stone Lyngdoh,Adv.
High Court of Meghalaya : Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak,AOR, Ms. Shashi Pathak,Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi,Adv.
State of Nagaland : Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,AOR, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh,Adv., Mr. Gaurav Prakash,Adv.
State of Odisha : Mr. Som Raj Choudhury,AOR, Mr. Prashant Kumar,Adv., Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,AOR, Mr. Ankit Agarwal,Adv., Mr. Amartya Singh,Adv.
High Court of Orissa : Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra,AOR, Mr. Umakant Mishra,Adv., Mr. Chanakya Gupta,Adv.
State of Pb. : Ms. Jaspreet Gogia,AOR, Ms. Sukhmani Bajwa,Adv., Ms. Mandakini Singh,Adv., Ms. Ashima Mandla,Adv.
High Court of Raj. : Mr. Purushaindra Kaurav,Sr.Adv., Mr. K. Parameshwar,AOR, Mr. M.V. Mukunda,Adv., Mr. Shailja Nanda Mishra,Adv., Mr. Arpit Parkash,Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha,AOR, Mr. Abhinav S. Raghuvanshi,Adv.
State of Sikkim : Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv., Mr. Avneesh Arputham,Adv., Ms. Anuradha Arputham,ADv., Ms. Geetanjali,Adv., Mr. Vivek Kohli,Adv., Ms. Yeshirinchhen,Adv., for M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co.,AOR
State of TN : Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Sr.Adv., Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AOR
State of Tripura : Mr. Shuvodeep Roy,AOR, Mr. Joydip Roy,Adv., Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose,Adv., Mr. Sataroop Das,Adv.
State of UP : Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Sr.Adv., Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel,Adv., Ms. Garima Prashad,AOR, Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi,Adv., Mr. Srinivas Vishven,Adv.
High Court of Allahabad : Mr. Sunny Choudhary,AOR,
State of Uttarakhand : Mr. Vinay Arora,Adv.(DAG), Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,AOR, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma,Adv.
State of WB : Mr. Suhaan Mukerji,Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma,Adv., Mr. Amit Verma,Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Manchanda,Adv., Mr. Pastut Dalvi,Adv., for M/s. PLR Chambers & Co.,AOR
UT of Chandigarh : Mr. Ankit Goel,AOR
Govt. of Puducherry : Mr. V.G. Pragasam,AOR, Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv.
UT of J&K : Mr. M. Shoeb Alam,AOR, Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan,Adv., Mr. Chanakya Gupta,Adv.
Andaman & Nicobar Admn. : Ms. G. Indira,AOR, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi,Adv., Mr. Shaurya Sahay,Adv., Mr. T.K. Nayak,Adv., Mr. P.S. Negi,Adv., Ms. Rekha Bakshi,Adv.,Ms. Shruti Ram Kochar,Adv., Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,AOR, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj,Adv., Mr. Subhasish Mohanty,AOR, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,AOR, Mr. Ashok Mathur,AOR, Mr. Gopal Singh,AOR ,Mr. R.P. Gupta,AOR ,Ms. Sneha Kalita,AOR, Mr. Prem Sunder Jha,AOR ,Mr. Leishangthem Roshmani Kh.,AOR, Mr. Milind Kumar,AOR, Mr. R. Nedumaran,AOR, Ms. Radhika Gautam,AOR, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki,AOR, Mr. Vinay Arora,AOR, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,AOR, Mr. P.I. Jose,AOR
Intervenor : Mr. Piyush Dwivedi,AOR, In-person
Impleading party : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain,Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma,Adv., Mr. S.K. Rajora,Adv., Mr. Akhileshwar Jha,Adv., Mr. Anikanissar Sayyed,AOR, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar,Adv., Mr. Anand Kr. Dubey,Adv., Mr. Narendra Kumar,AOR

Headnote:
POCSO Act - POCSO cases - POCSO Courts - Setting up - Reason for ordering of setting up exclusive POCSO Courts is that these Courts are to deal with children who are sexually abused - These children who have been abused need to be dealt with great sensitivity and empathy - They cannot be dealt with like or along with other litigants and victims in Courts - Therefore, need to set up exclusive Courts dealing with crimes relating to POCSO Act - St Court will also take up issue of exclusive Public Prosecutors for POCSO courts and facilities of Forensic Science Laboratories - With regard to the issue of Human Right Court, matter will come upates and Registrar Generals of almost all High Courts submitted requisite information and thereupon, Shri Rathi prepared a comprehensive report which has been taken into consideration by this Court on - Whether in those districts where there are less than 100 cases, there should be an exclusive POCSO Court or a Court which deals with both POCSO and rape cases – Held, After order had been dictated Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate, appeared for State of Madhya Pradesh and requested that some more time may be granted to file an affidavit - He may file a proper application giving reasons, as to why affidavit was not filed earlier - He may file an affidavit in terms of Court earlier orders and thereafter we may consider reducing costs imposed earlier - Court will also take up the issue of exclusive Public Prosecutors for POCSO courts and the facilities of Forensic Science Laboratories - With regard to issue of Human Right Court, matter will come up - Learned Solicitor General of India has brought to our notice an order dated passed by, District & Sessions Judge (West), seeking a clarification whether case should be tried by him or by Magistrate, if it is found by him that cases are specifically triable by Court of a Magistrate - Keeping in view earlier orders and nature of offence and fact that cases are interconnected with each other, Court direct Shri Dharmesh Sharma to continue with all five cases - Order accordingly.

ORDER :

1. There are three issues being dealt with in this petition but today this Court shall deal with only with issue of setting up of exclusive POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Courts in this Country. On 15.7.2019, this Court had noticed t hat there are large number of POCSO cases pending throughout the country and we had requested that data be collected with regard to the number and pendency of such cases. Thereafter, Shri Surinder S. Rathi, Registrar (E-Committee), Supreme Court of India, had collected information and submitted the same to this Court on 25.7.2019. This Court passed a detailed order on 25.7.2019, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

(ii) Such Courts will be set up under a Central scheme and will be funded by the Central Government, which fund will not only take care of the appointment of the Presiding Officer, but also the appointments of support persons, Special Public Prosecutors, Court staff and infrastructure including creation of child friendly environment and vulnerable witness Court rooms, etc.

(iii) While drawing up the panels of support persons in each district which should not exceed a reasonable number keeping in mind the total number of cases to be tried by the special Court to be set up in each district, care should be taken to appoint persons who are dedicated to the cause and apart from academic qualifications are oriented towards child rights; are sensitive to the needs of a child and are otherwise child friendly. The same standards would also apply in the matter of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors."

2. This Court had directed that in any District where there are more than 100 cases, an exclusive Court should be set up only to deal with POCSO cases and will not try any other offence except those under the POCSO Act. We had directed that such Court should be set up under the central scheme and would be fully funded by the Central Government.

3. The reason for ordering of setting up exclusive POCSO Courts is that these Courts are to deal with children who are sexually abused. These children who have been abused need to be dealt with great sensitivity and empathy. They cannot be dealt with like or along with other litigants and victims in Courts. Therefore, the need to set up exclusive Courts dealing with crimes relating to the POCSO Act

4. Thereafter on 1.10.2019, the States and Registrar Generals of all the High Courts were directed to file affidavits on or before 7.11.2019, in a chart setting out the following information

2. Number of Districts in which the POCSO cases are more than 100

3. Number of Districts where POCSO cases are more than 200 or multiples of 200 i.e. 400, 600, 800 etc.

4. Number of exclusive POCSO Courts already functioning, if any.

5. Number of POCSO Courts actually notified.

6. Number of Special Public Prosecutors, if any, exclusively assigned for POCSO Courts."

5. The States and Registrar Generals of almost all the High Courts submitted the requisite information and thereupon, Shri Rathi prepared a comprehensive report which has been taken into consideration by this Court on 13.11.2019. On that date we had noted with concern that in 20% of the cases even investigation has not been completed within one year. We had also noticed that about 2/3rd cases were pending trial for more than one year. We had, therefore, requested the State Governments and the Union of India to do all that was required to ensure that all stages of investigation and trial are completed well within the period prescribed under the POCSO Act. Fresh affidavits have been filed only by 18 States and Union Territories.

6. We shall now deal with the issue of setting up exclusive POCSO Courts in each State. We make it clear that, in this ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 2318

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.IN RE : ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTSSuo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s).1/2019WITHW.P.(C)No.819/2019 (PIL-W)Decided On : 16-12-2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
IN RE : ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s).1/2019
WITH
W.P.(C)No.819/2019 (PIL-W)
Decided On : 16-12-2019