Kerala High Court Directs State To Appoint Special Public Prosecutors Exclusively For POCSO Cases Within Six Weeks

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment while disposing of a public interest litigation which challenged a government order which permitted the Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO cases to conduct non-POCSO cases instituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

During the hearing, the Director General of Prosecution submitted that the definition of “Children's Court” under Section 2(20) of the Juvenile Justice Act supported permitting POCSO Special Public Prosecutors to conduct cases under the Juvenile Justice Act as well.

The Court, however, held that the government order under challenge, which permitted POCSO Special Public Prosecutors to conduct non-POCSO cases, was apparently in conflict with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in In Re Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents, (2020).

The Supreme Court had directed States to appoint exclusive Public Prosecutors in courts established exclusively for POCSO cases. The Supreme Court had also called for specialised training for such prosecutors, including training in law, child psychology, child behaviour and health issues.

It had also highlighted that the responsibilities of such prosecutors extend beyond legal knowledge to psychological, health-related and other issues associated with child victims.

Relying on these directions, the Kerala High Court concluded that the government order permitting POCSO Special Public Prosecutors to conduct non-POCSO cases could not be sustained.

“In view of the aforesaid, the Government Order permitting Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO cases to conduct non-POCSO cases cannot be sustained. The State Government is directed to appoint Special Public Prosecutors exclusively for POCSO cases within six weeks from date.” the Court said.

The Court had earlier directed the State to assess the requirements for additional courts to deal with the cases under POCSO Act.

The Court considered an affidavit filed by the Registrar (District Judiciary) regarding facilities available for POCSO cases.

The Court directed the State Government to consider establishing the remaining 13 permanent, exclusive POCSO Special Courts, with one court in each district other than Ernakulam, in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions.

The State must communicate its decision to the High Court Administration within four weeks from the date of communication of the judgment.

Previously, the Court had observed that during its visit to District Courts, it found that most of the POCSO courts did not conform to the guidelines prescribed under the POCSO Act. It also noted that the facilities available in these courts were inadequate.

The Court thus directed the Registrar (District Judiciary) to ensure that all POCSO Courts conform to the requirements of the POCSO Act.

Where existing courts do not comply with any of the prescribed requirements, immediate steps must be taken to carry out the necessary additions and alterations.

The State Government has further been directed to provide the necessary financial and other assistance to enable the High Court Administration and the Registrar (District Judiciary) to undertake the required modifications to existing POCSO Court infrastructure.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Counsel for Petitioner: V.M. Krishnakumar, P.R. Reena, Pooja Sunil

Counsel for Respondent: Asaf Ali (DGP), Harikumar G