Supreme Court Directs Creation Of Exclusive POCSO Courts On Top Priority |Timelines Under POCSO Act Must Be Adhered To As Far As Possible | Mandates Expedited Trials And Forensic Processing
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has concluded suo moto proceedings concerning the alarming rise in child rape cases across the country. The court directed that all stages of investigation and trial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, must adhere to statutory timelines. Acknowledging compliance by most states in establishing special POCSO courts, the court emphasized that in states with high pendency, additional courts must be created. The matter was formally closed with appreciation for the assistance of appointed senior counsels.
On July 12, 2019, the Supreme Court, taking cognizance of alarming media reports on the rising number of child rape cases in India, directed its Registry to register a suo moto writ petition titled “In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents.” The court appointed Senior Advocate Mr. V. Giri as Amicus Curiae to assist in framing suitable directions.
Following initial hearings with Mr. Giri, Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta, and Registrar Mr. Rathi, the court issued a comprehensive order on July 25, 2019. This directive established structural requirements to facilitate faster and child-sensitive trials under the POCSO Act.
The July 25 order mandated the creation of exclusive POCSO courts in districts with over 100 cases under the Act. These courts were to be part of a centrally funded scheme, covering appointments of presiding officers, support personnel, prosecutors, and infrastructure that includes child-friendly and vulnerable witness courtrooms. Guidelines were laid for appointing sensitive and qualified support staff and prosecutors.
Additionally, the court ordered the Ministry of Women and Child Development to produce and circulate a short awareness film about child abuse and available helplines, to be broadcast in movie theatres and on television. Child helpline numbers were also to be displayed prominently in public spaces and schools.
The court recognized delays in trial processes, particularly attributing them to forensic lab report backlogs. It accepted the Amicus Curiae’s suggestion of establishing dedicated forensic science laboratories for POCSO cases in each district but deferred that directive, instead ordering current state forensic labs to prioritize and expedite POCSO-related analyses. State Chief Secretaries were instructed to ensure full compliance.
Subsequent to the initial directives, the court issued multiple follow-up orders, requiring updates from state governments and High Courts through their registrars on the implementation status. On November 13, 2019, a report submitted by the Registrar of the Supreme Court provided a breakdown of the types of POCSO offences and pendency rates. The court reiterated the need for timely investigation and trial completion as per statutory timelines, and further directed the creation or assignment of dedicated courts for POCSO cases with top priority.
On December 16, 2019, the court issued separate directives to Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal due to their disproportionately high pendency. The bench also explored the possibility of a national scheme for compensating victims under the POCSO Act. It addressed issues such as protection of victims and witnesses, with particular reference to the Unnao case.
During hearings, concerns were also raised about the shortage of public prosecutors and the absence of dedicated forensic infrastructure, hindering swift and thorough investigations. The court instructed state governments to establish forensic science laboratories specifically to handle POCSO cases, stating that the absence of such infrastructure was contributing to trial delays.
Despite earlier urgency, the matter remained pending until September 24, 2024, when the bench once again invited submissions from Amicus Curiae Mr. V. Giri and Senior Advocate Ms. Uttara Babbar. In response, the counsels submitted detailed state-wise status reports and a summary chart outlining the number of POCSO courts and pending cases across each jurisdiction.
Reviewing the data, the court acknowledged that most states had complied with the directive to establish special POCSO courts using central funding. However, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha, and Maharashtra, the number of existing courts was found inadequate relative to the volume of pending cases. These states were identified as needing additional dedicated courts to meet statutory deadlines.
The court reiterated that under the POCSO Act, each stage—from investigation to trial—carries specific timelines that must be followed. Delays caused by inadequate infrastructure, including the limited number of courts, were found to be the principal reason for non-compliance.
The court recorded that “timelines have been stipulated under the POCSO Act for all stages right from the stage of Investigation up to the stage of Trial, the same must be adhered to as far as possible.”
It stated: “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.”
On the responsibility of the government, the bench noted: “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.”
Further, the court directed: “It is expected... to see to it that the chargesheets are filed within the mandatory period stipulated in the Act, and the Trials are completed within the time frame as contemplated in the Act.”
Regarding compliance, the court observed: “Having regard to the Chart showing the Status of POCSO Cases and POCSO Courts in each State, it appears that majority of the States with the funding from the Central government have complied with the directions issued by the Court.”
However, it added: “In certain States like Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra etc., there is still a need to create more POCSO Courts considering the pendency of the POCSO cases.”
On forensic delays, the court referred to its prior order stating: “We direct the Directors of the State Forensic Science Laboratories and the concerned authority in the State Government to ensure that the existing and available Forensic Science Laboratories in each State will function in an effective manner...” and that results must be provided “promptly and without any delay.”
The Supreme Court directed that exclusive and designated POCSO Courts must continue to be created in districts with high pendency. It reiterated that “if there are more than 100 cases under the POCSO Act, an exclusive/designated special Court will be set up, which will try no other offence except those under the POCSO Act.”
It instructed that these courts must be established under a centrally funded scheme covering all essential roles, including “appointment of the Presiding Officer, support persons, Special Public Prosecutors, Court staff and infrastructure including creation of child friendly environment and vulnerable witness Court rooms.”
The court directed that support persons and prosecutors must be “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.”
Further, it mandated that “a short clip intended to spread an awareness of the subject in general, namely, prevention of child abuse and prosecution of crimes against children, should necessarily be screened in every movie hall and could also be transmitted by various television channels at regular intervals.”
A child helpline number must be “displayed not only in such clip but also at various other prominent places, in schools and other public places.”
Regarding forensic services, the court directed that “existing and available Forensic Science Laboratories in each State will function in an effective manner” and ensure prompt delivery of results. It held that “reports of such analysis be sent promptly and without any delay.”
Acknowledging the contributions made during the proceedings, the court stated: “We would be failing in our duty, if we do not place on record, our appreciation for the very able assistance rendered by the learned Senior Counsels Mr. V. Giri and Ms. Babbar during this Suo Moto proceedings.”
The court closed the proceedings with the observation that “subject to the above, the Suo-Moto proceedings need to be closed and are hereby closed.”
Case Title: In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 695
Case Number: Suo Moto W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019
Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
[Read/Download order]
