Back
Orders State to Fix Non-Compliant POCSO Courts, Appoint
Kochi: The has directed the to take immediate steps to bring courts dealing with cases under the into compliance with statutory guidelines, after discovering during an inspection that most such courts lack adequate facilities and do not conform to prescribed standards.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued the directives while hearing a filed by the .
A Troubling Discovery: POCSO Courts Falling Short
The Court recorded its firsthand findings from visits to district courts across the state.
"During the visit to the District Courts, we found that most of the POCSO courts do not conform to the guidelines specified under the POCSO Act. The facilities are also inadequate,"
the Bench observed.
The POCSO Act and its rules envision dedicated Special Courts with child-friendly infrastructure, , and arrangements to prevent a child victim from being exposed to the accused. The High Court's acknowledgment that existing courts fall short underscores a significant gap between the law's promise and its implementation on the ground.
To address this, the Court directed the to file an disclosing the number of additional courts required for POCSO cases, taking into account the 's directions on the subject and the practices followed by different High Courts. The must also identify which courts trying POCSO cases do not conform to the guidelines. Where space is inadequate, the was directed to provide suitable rooms with all necessary infrastructure for the proper functioning of POCSO courts in conformity with the guidelines.
The Mandate for Exclusive Prosecutors
The Court also took up the issue of appointment of Public Prosecutors exclusively for POCSO cases. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the 's judgment in Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents, In Re (2020) 7 SCC 130, submitting that the appointment of for POCSO courts is a mandate and that the State had failed to fulfil this obligation.
The High Court extracted paragraph 10 of that judgment, in which the
had directed all States to
"appoint
in all the courts which have been set up exclusively for POCSO cases."
The
had further emphasised specialised training for these prosecutors,
"not only in law but also in child psychology, child behaviour, health issues, etc.,"
and requested the
to develop a programme to train "master trainers" who could then train prosecutors across the country.
The Court directed the to consider paragraph 10 of the 's decision and make appropriate submissions on the next date of hearing.
What Happens Next?
An adjournment was sought on behalf of the . The Court listed the matter for , directing that the DGP make submissions on the exclusive prosecutor mandate and that the Registrar file the on additional courts and compliance in the meantime.
The order addresses a critical gap in the POCSO framework. By insisting on conformity with guidelines, calling for an assessment of additional court requirements, and pressing the State on the appointment of exclusive, specially-trained prosecutors, the Court has sought to convert long-standing legal mandates into measurable, time-bound action. With the matter listed for mid-October and an awaited, the case will test how far the State moves to close the gap between the POCSO framework on paper and its functioning in the courts.
