For the nine years when the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has been in force, concerns about pendency of cases have started to become louder and more forceful.
While some child rights activists demand that more special POCSO courts be set up for quick disposal, others propose a fundamental change in attitude and investigation to resolve more cases.
According to data available, as on January 31, 2020, there were over 1,000 POCSO cases under investigation in Tamil Nadu, a further 888 cases not taken on file, and 4,614 cases that were pending trial. Not taken on file (see table) stands for the cases in which the chargesheet would have been approved but the court has not taken it on record and so it has not yet been numbered to be taken up for trial.
“The whole idea is that children are involved in these cases, and they are often recounting very traumatic and disturbing incidents. Pendency of trial, if the case gets to court, that is bound to be very painful for the victims of child sexual abuse,” says Vidya Reddy of Tulir-Centre for Prevention and Healing of Child Sexual Abuse. Pendency flies in the face of the basic provision in the Act, which mandates that every case be disposed of within a year, once taken cognisance of, she points out.
As per National Crime Records Bureau statistics, in 2019, there was a pendency of 88.8% in POCSO cases in the country. In March, a parliamentary panel said 31,668 cases had been filed in 2017; 38,802 in 2018; and 46,005 cases in 2019 under the Act. Noting the increase in the number of cases over the years, it recommended that the Centre expedite the setting up of fast-track special courts, and that the courts stick to a time frame for adjudicating the cases. There are 325 courts for POCSO cases in the country.
Justice K. Chandru, a retired judge of the Madras High Court, however, asks the question: how many of these cases are really ready for trial? Since there are special procedures, there might be a time delay. But he is quick to point out that if the trial is not expeditious, there are likely to be consequences.
For instance, he said, in the Podhumbu case (in 2011), in which a school headmaster was arrested for sexually abusing at least 40 girl students, 24 witnesses had turned hostile because of the delay. The delay in the disposal of cases, he explains, is likely to be a combination of factors — tardy investigation or investigation by corrupt police personnel and delaying tactics of the defence. The way out, according to him, is more rigorous training and sensitisation for trial judges, prosecutors and the police.
“More courts will be a stop gap arrangement to push more cases to resolution,” says Girija Kumarababu, ex-general secretary, Indian Council for Child Welfare. “There is no doubt we need to expedite the resolution of POCSO cases. The thing is both the child who has been abused and the abuser live in the same environment, where the latter usually has more power, socially.”
The longer a case drags on, the less reluctant is the family or the child to keep on coming back to court; victims also feel the need to move on, she says.
Activists, at this point, recall the DMK’s promise in the run-up to the Assembly election that it would set up special courts in all districts to deal with POCSO cases and punish the guilty at the earliest. They hope Chief Minister M.K. Stalin will make good on the promise. Justice delayed, as they say, is often justice denied; particularly so in POCSO cases.
