Madras High Court’s Directive on POCSO Courts
The Madras High Court has instructed the Tamil Nadu State government and the High Court Registry to provide exhaustive reports on the operational status of courts handling cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) throughout the state. This directive emerged from a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.
The Bench requested the Registry to compile a detailed account of the total number of pending POCSO cases in each district. Furthermore, the Court seeks information regarding the number of functioning POCSO courts in each district, the courts needing presiding officers, the requirement for new courts, and the infrastructure necessary to expedite the resolution of such cases.
On June 22, the Court mandated, “The learned counsel representing the High Court and the State must file comprehensive reports regarding the POCSO courts’ operations in Tamil Nadu, encompassing all relevant facts and statistics.” The next hearing is scheduled for July 7.
Background of the Directive
The order was pronounced in response to a writ petition filed by a survivor of sexual assault, who sought directives for prompt trials in cases of rape, sexual offenses, and POCSO cases across Tamil Nadu. Previously, on May 27, a Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan issued urgent directives in the same matter. The petitioner was reportedly a victim of a grave sexual crime allegedly perpetrated by police personnel.
The case was lodged by the All Women Police Station in Tiruvannamalai, citing offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The final report had been filed, and the case was registered at the Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai. Despite being filed on December 11, 2025, the trial had yet to commence, according to the petitioner. It was also highlighted that the accused police personnel had been dismissed from service as of October 2, 2025.
More Read
Court’s Observations and Directions
The earlier bench expressed its dissatisfaction, stating, “We fail to understand why the learned trial Judge has not expedited the inquiry to date.” The bench also clarified that the mere existence of a revision petition by the accused against the dismissal of a discharge plea should not delay the trial.
The trial court was instructed to resolve the discharge petition filed by the second accused within seven days. Should the ruling favor the prosecution and no interim relief be obtained from a higher court within ten days, the trial should be concluded by July 31, 2026, with daily hearings.
Representing the petitioner were Advocates S Kamalakannan and Jayasudha. Advocate General Vijay Narayan, with Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani, appeared for the State, while Advocate B Vijay represented the High Court Registry.
[Read Order]
