Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors. (2018)

Introduction 

This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions for speedy trial and monitoring of POCSO cases in child-friendly courts across India. 

• The Judgment was delivered by a 3-judge Bench consisting of former Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. 

Facts 

• The Writ Petition was filed raising two critical issues concerning the implementation of the POCSO Act. 
• The first issue concerned the treatment of an eight-month-old female child who had become a victim of a crime under the POCSO Act. 
• The second issue raised concerns about speedy trial and monitoring of trials under the POCSO Act in child-friendly courts. 
• The petition brought to light the alarming pendency of POCSO cases across various States in India. 
• For instance, approximately 30,884 cases were pending in Uttar Pradesh and 10,117 cases in Madhya Pradesh. 
• Many of these cases were pending at the evidence stage beyond one year, defeating the purpose of the legislation. 
• The petitioner appeared in person and highlighted the need for sensitivity and speedy disposal of cases under the POCSO Act. 
• The Court took immediate steps to ensure proper medical treatment for the victim child. 
• A team of doctors from AIIMS was sent to examine the child at Kalawati Saran Children Hospital. 
• The Delhi State Legal Services Authority was directed to accompany the medical team and ensure all assistance. 
• An interim compensation of Rs. 75,000 was awarded to the victim under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015. 
• The child was shifted to AIIMS for better treatment and underwent necessary surgeries. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether appropriate directions should be issued to ensure speedy trial and monitoring of cases under the POCSO Act across India? 
• Whether Special Courts under the POCSO Act are functioning effectively in accordance with the legislative intent? 

Court’s Observations 

• The Court emphasized that the POCSO Act is a gender-neutral legislation enacted to protect children from sexual offences. 
• The legislation was brought into force keeping in view Article 15(3) of the Constitution which empowers the State to make special provisions for children. 
• Article 39(f) of the Constitution provides that the State shall ensure that children are given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner with freedom and dignity. 
• The Court noted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the POCSO Act focuses on reduction of child abuse and protection of children from sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. 
• The Court observed that the right to privacy and confidentiality of a child must be protected and respected at all stages of the judicial process. 
• Section 28 of the POCSO Act requires designation of a Court of Session in each district as a Special Court to ensure speedy trial. 
• Section 32 stipulates appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for every Special Court to conduct cases only under the POCSO Act. 
• Section 33 provides various safeguards at the trial stage including child-friendly atmosphere, presence of trusted persons, and protection of the child's dignity. 
• The Court particularly emphasized Section 35 which mandates recording of evidence within thirty days and completion of trial within one year from taking cognizance. 
• Section 36 ensures that the child is not exposed to the accused while recording evidence, though the accused must be able to hear the statement. 
• Section 37 provides for trial in camera and in the presence of parents or persons trusted by the child. 
• The Court quoted the observation that "child is the father of man" and must be groomed well in formative years. 
• The Court acknowledged that while Section 35(2) says "as far as possible", the spirit of the Act demands strict adherence to time-bound trials. 
• The Court issued comprehensive directions to bridge the gap between legislation and its actual implementation on the ground. 

Directions Issued: 

The Supreme Court issued the following binding directions: 

• High Courts shall ensure that cases under the POCSO Act are tried and disposed of by Special Courts whose presiding officers are sensitized in child protection and psychological response. 
• Special Courts as conceived under the Act shall be established if not already done and be assigned responsibility to deal with POCSO cases. 
• Instructions should be issued to Special Courts to fast-track cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act. 
• Chief Justices of High Courts shall constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under the POCSO Act. 
• In High Courts where three Judges are not available, a one-Judge Committee shall be constituted. 
• The Director General of Police or equivalent rank officer of States shall constitute a Special Task Force to ensure proper investigation and production of witnesses on fixed dates. 
• Adequate steps shall be taken by High Courts to provide child-friendly atmosphere in Special Courts keeping in view the provisions of the POCSO Act. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court in this landmark judgment recognized the grave concern of pending POCSO cases across India and issued comprehensive directions for their speedy disposal. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent and purpose of the POCSO Act must be fructified at the ground level through actual implementation. The directions ensure monitoring at the highest judicial level through Judge Committees in every High Court. The judgment reinforces that sexual exploitation and abuse of children are heinous crimes that need to be effectively and swiftly addressed.