Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice P.B. Varale
Introduction:
This suo motu writ petition was initiated by the Supreme Court in 2019 in response to the alarming increase in the number of child rape cases reported across the country. The Court aimed to assess the implementation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and directed systemic reforms for the effective functioning of Special POCSO Courts, appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, and provision of training to relevant stakeholders.
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Section 28: Designation of Special Courts for POCSO cases
- Constitution of India
- Article 21: Right to life and speedy trial
- Article 32 & 142: Powers of the Supreme Court to ensure justice
Facts of the Case:
In 2019, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the growing number of child rape incidents. It issued various directions for: Creation of exclusive Special Courts under the POCSO Act, Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, Adequate training and infrastructure for speedy justice. The Court has since monitored the compliance by States and Union Territories. The case has seen multiple hearings over the years to assess progress.
In 2025, the Court heard submissions by Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar, highlighting continued non-compliance by several States.
Issues:
- Whether the States have complied with the 2019 directions of the Supreme Court regarding the establishment of Special POCSO Courts?
- Whether the lack of judges and adequately trained personnel is hampering the effective implementation of the POCSO Act?
- Whether the mere establishment of Special POCSO Courts without appointment of sufficient judicial officers and support staff serves the objective of fast-tracking POCSO trials?
- Whether the Supreme Court should continue to monitor this suo motu matter to ensure effective implementation of the POCSO Act and its objectives?
Contentions of the Petitioner
Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar pointed out: Non-compliance by several States with the Court’s 2019 directions. Specific shortfall in the number of Special POCSO Courts in States like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Bihar, Odisha, etc. Urged the Court to continue monitoring the matter. Highlighted that without trained judges and prosecutors, merely establishing courts is ineffective. Requested strict compliance and further directions to ensure effective implementation of the POCSO framework.
Contentions of the Respondents
Many State counsels were unable to provide satisfactory responses or clear data on compliance. Some sought more time to seek instructions from their respective State departments. Advocates raised concern that setting up special courts under various laws is burdening the already stretched judiciary. Cited the shortage of judicial officers as a major hurdle. Mentioned impleadment in the All India Judges Association case which is also addressing the issue of court staffing.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Bela M. Trivedi repeatedly emphasized that creating courts without appointing judges serves no purpose. The Court recognized that although infrastructure may have improved since 2019, substantive issues like shortage of judges, inadequate training, and ineffective execution remain. Expressed dissatisfaction over repeated adjournments sought by State counsels for seeking instructions. Observed that judicial manpower shortage is a systemic problem, not just limited to POCSO implementation. Acknowledged the intent of the legislature in enacting special laws, but remarked on the gap between legislation and implementation. The bench appeared inclined to wind up the proceedings but was urged by the amicus to continue supervision in light of persisting non-compliance.
Conclusion:
Judgment reserved by the bench on 7 May 2025. The Court is expected to pronounce whether it will continue to monitor the matter or issue final directions for compliance.
