Facts of the Case

The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman challenging the detention of her husband under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Sand-Offenders, Slum-Grabbers, and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (popularly known as the Goondas Act). The detenu was branded a “Sexual Offender” and accused of repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl, an offence punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

During the hearing, the Madras High Court Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar noted that the investigation had been completed and a chargesheet had been filed and taken on record by the Special Court. However, despite completion of investigation, the trial had not commenced. The Court observed a worrying trend of similar delays across several districts, where trials in POCSO cases were not being initiated within the statutory timelines prescribed under Section 35 of the Act.

In response, the Court directed the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, and the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy, to submit independent affidavits containing data on POCSO cases where detention orders had been passed, to ensure that the evidence of the child victim and de facto complainant were recorded within the period of detention. Upon receipt of these affidavits, the Court was alarmed to find that 395 cases of a similar nature were pending and that, barring a few exceptions, Presiding Officers of Special Courts had failed to examine the victim child within 30 days from the date of cognisance of the chargesheet as required under law.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner challenged the preventive detention order issued against her husband, arguing that the detention was unjustified as the criminal investigation had concluded and the chargesheet had already been filed before the Special Court. It was contended that the detaining authority had acted mechanically without proper application of mind and that the continued detention of the petitioner’s husband served no legitimate preventive purpose. The petitioner further argued that the delay in trial proceedings, despite the filing of the chargesheet, amounted to a violation of the procedural guarantees under the POCSO Act and reflected systemic inefficiency, which should not prejudice the rights of the accused or the victim.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State, represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, justified the detention by referring to the gravity of the offence and the nature of allegations against the detenu. It was submitted that the petitioner’s husband had committed multiple acts of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, rendering him a danger to society. The prosecution emphasized that the detention order was passed to prevent further such offences and to maintain public order.

The State further relied upon various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1130 : 2025 INSC 695), where the Apex Court underscored the need to adhere strictly to statutory timelines under the POCSO Act. The Additional Public Prosecutor also cited Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka (2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12300 : ILR 2021 KAR 3469), wherein it was clarified that although Section 35(1) mandates recording the evidence of the child within 30 days of cognisance, delays may be condoned if reasons are properly recorded by the Special Court.

Court’s Observations

The Bench observed with grave concern that there was “a total absence of compliance with the mandatory provision under Section 35 of the POCSO Act”, which requires the Special Court to record the evidence of the child victim within 30 days from the date of taking cognisance of the offence. The Court stated that “barring a negligible number of cases, the Presiding Officers of the Special Courts have failed to examine the victim child within the statutory period.”

The Court drew reference to the Supreme Court’s directives in In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents and other precedents, observing that the failure to adhere to statutory timelines defeats the spirit and purpose of the POCSO Act. Quoting the Apex Court, the Bench recalled that “the High Courts shall ensure that the cases registered under the POCSO Act are tried and disposed of by the Special Courts and that the Presiding Officers of the said Courts are sensitised in matters of child protection and psychological response.”

The Court emphasized that while Section 35(2) uses the expression “as far as possible,” the legislative intent clearly prioritizes time-bound justice in cases involving child victims of sexual offences. The Bench noted that the systemic failure to record evidence promptly not only prolongs the trauma of the child but also undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the justice delivery mechanism.

It was further observed that “best practices prescribed in the circular issued by the High Court for handling POCSO cases have evidently not been followed in the majority of cases.” The judges underscored that judicial officers must be regularly trained and sensitised about both the procedural obligations and the psychological dimensions of handling child witnesses, as envisaged under the Act.

Court’s Order

In conclusion, the Madras High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the preventive detention order. However, in view of the alarming data and systemic lapses revealed, the Court issued significant institutional directions to strengthen the administration of justice under the POCSO framework.

The Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court of Madras to “reissue the circular bearing, Roc.No.543/RG/2023/POCSO, dated 12.07.2024,” reminding Presiding Officers of the Special Courts about the necessity to comply with Section 35 of the POCSO Act in letter and spirit.

Further, the Bench requested the Director of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct a special training session for Presiding Officers of all Special Courts handling POCSO cases. The Court specified that the session should “sensitize them to (a) the statutory requirement to record the evidence of the child victim within 30 days from the date of cognizance of the charge sheet; and (b) the importance of promptly taking cognizance of charge sheets, including those filed electronically, within a reasonable time and without undue delay.”

The Bench also directed that the reports and statistical data submitted by the Inspector Generals of Police, South and Central Zones, be annexed to the order and appreciated the assistance rendered by the officers and the Additional Public Prosecutor. The Court concluded that such systemic data, when analysed by the Judicial Academy, may “bring to light systemic issues in the judicial process, particularly the failure to promptly take cognizance of charge sheets and non-examination of victim children within the stipulated period.”

Thus, the judgment not only addressed the individual habeas corpus plea but also sought to correct systemic judicial delays, reaffirming the statutory and moral imperative of ensuring child-sensitive and time-bound justice in POCSO cases.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai