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

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 735

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
IN RE: ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl) No 1 of 2019
(WITH IA No. 146230/2019 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 135383/2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 132386/2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 132388/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 38321/2020 - EXTENSION OF TIME
IA No. 143390/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 34316/2020 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 132359/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 27641/2020 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER)
Decided On : 06-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate (A.C.), Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv., Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv., Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv., Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Adv., Mr. Surinder S. Rathi, Registrar, SC
For the Respondents: Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv., Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Mr. S.S. Rebello, Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv., Mr. N.K. Gokhale, Adv., Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv. Mr. Manish, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Rahul Raj Mishra, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Mr. D.K. Devesh, Adv. Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. Prashant K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jenis Francis, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sagar, Adv. Mr. Hari Kumar V., Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv. Mr. Palak Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Vinay Arora, AOR Mr. Harpuneet Singh Rai, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Adv. Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Ms. Aarzoo Aneja, Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Mrinal K. Mondal, Adv. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv. Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Renjith B. Marar, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR Mr. A. Karthik, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Kumawar, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Shaurya Sahay, Adv. Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv. Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Mr. S. Ram Kochar, Adv. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Adv. Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv. Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Mr. Ramesh Babu, Adv. Mr. R. P. Gupta, AOR Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Shubhali Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR Intervenor-in-person Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, AOR Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali, Adv. M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tanya Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Ramdev, Adv. Ms. Ashna Bhatnagar, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Prem Sunder Jha, AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Adv. Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Adv. Mr. Rahul Khatri, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Abishek Manchanda, Adv. M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Harichandan, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR Mr. Vinay Mathew, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Savne, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Baghel, Adv. Mr. Dhirendra Singh Parmar, Adv. Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Srinivas Vishven, Adv. Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mr. Samarth Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv. Mr. Anand Kr. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sangeetha MR, Adv. Mr. Avni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ananya Kandelwal, Adv. Mr. Amber Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Ms. Upma Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Siddharth, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mahajan, AAG Mr. Aakash Varma, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, Adv. Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Annikanissar Sayeed, Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kr. Singla, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhusan Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv. Mr. Deniel Stone Lyngdoh, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Geo Goseph, Adv. Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Adv. Ms. Poonam Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Adv.

Headnote:
POCSO Act - Affidavit - National scheme - Payment of compensation to victims - States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, NCT of Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Punjab and Rajasthan have not filed their affidavits so for - On behalf of State of Punjab, it is stated that State does not intend to file any further affidavit and relies on affidavit filed by Punjab and Haryana High Court - As far as other States are concerned, as prayed, ten days’ time is granted to file affidavit - In case same is not filed on or before Chief Secretarys of concerned States shall remain present on the next date of hearing - Whether Special Public Prosecutors have been exclusively appointed for the POCSO Courts or not – Held, Court make it clear that in case there is a lack of clarity, Court will assume that they have not been appointed exclusively and if any State wishes to clarify, it may clarify - IA No (Application on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh) - Application has been filed on behalf of High Court of Madhya Pradesh - It has been pointed out in affidavit that in case count is not district-wise, but court-wise, then number of cases may be less than 100 in each Court - Court accede to the request of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and allow High Court of Madhya Pradesh to set up Courts by making calculation court-wise and not district-wise where the courts are at difference places - They need not set up non-exclusive Courts where work in station is less than 100 cases - Application is accordingly disposed of.

ORDER :

1. Despite our order dated 16th December, 2019, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, NCT of Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Punjab and Rajasthan have not filed their affidavits so for. On behalf of the State of Punjab, it is stated that the State does not intend to file any further affidavit and relies on the affidavit filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. As far as other States are concerned, as prayed, ten days’ time is granted to file the affidavit. In case the same is not filed on or before 18th March, 2020, the Chief Secretarys of the concerned States shall remain present on the next date of hearing.

2. List the matter on 24th March, 2020.

3. In the meantime, learned amicus curiae to prepare a comparative chart.

4. On the next date of hearing, we shall consider the issue of framing a national scheme for payment of compensation to victims of offences under the POCSO Act.

5. For this purpose, we request the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India to remain present in Court to assist us with regard to the formulation of scheme for payment of compensation to the victims.

6. Mr. V. Giri, learned amicus curiae, states that in some of the affidavits filed, there is a lack of clarity with regard to setting up of more than one exclusive POCSO Courts where the offences in a particular Districts are more than 300. He also submits that in a large number of affidavits filed, it is not clearly mentioned whether the Special Public Prosecutors have been exclusively appointed for the POCSO Courts or not.

7. We make it clear that in case there is a lack of clarity, we will assume that they have not been appointed exclusively and if any State wishes to clarify, it may clarify by 18th March, 2020. IA No 27641/2020 (Application on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh)

8. This application has been filed on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

9. It is pointed out that there were POCSO cases which are being tried by the normal Additional Sessions Judge not in the District Headquarters, but in Tehsil Headquarters itself. It has been pointed out in the affidavit that in case the count is not district-wise, but court-wise, then the number of cases may be less than 100 in each Court.

10. We accede to the request of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and allow the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to set up Courts by making calculation court-wise and not district-wise where the courts are at difference places. They need not set up non-exclusive Courts where the work in station is less than 100 cases.

11. The application is accordingly disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document