The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that there were correctional requirements which needed to be adopted by the stakeholders. The court added that the law relating to children was still developing and needed constant tweaking and readjustments.

“We have to note that there are some correctional requirements which have to be adopted by all the stakeholders implementing the laws relating to children. The deficiencies and the manner of rectification of the same are set forth in a tabular column hereunder. For the sake of understanding, we have divided the implementation plan as regards the police, the healthcare professionals, the Courts and the Juvenile Justice Boards. This is not an exhaustive list. It only identifies the areas which require improvement and contains our suggestions. The law relating to children is still developing. It requires constant tweaking and readjustments. This is one such attempt,” the court noted.

Starting with the police force, the court noted that there was an issue of non-awareness of court orders which led to children being subjected to coercive action resulting in trauma, stigma, and unnecessary separation from their families. The court suggested having supervisory monitoring of compliance and clearing of bureaucratic roadblocks.

Another issue that the court identified was that the investigation in POCSO cases was being confined to All Woman Police Stations, which was slowing the investigation. The court suggested that the investigation could be shifted to units with both men and women officers and that Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners who supervise the cases could be given training.

The court also noted that FIRs were being registered even in cases of consensual relationship between minors. The court noted that the male child was often being unfairly criminalised and his family was being drawn to the Juvenile Justice Board and the families were being treated unequally in the same offence. The court suggested that whenever the girl's parents insisted on registering an FIR, the police inform them that the male child has the same option and inform his parents or guardians accordingly.

With respect to disclosure of identity of the victims, the court suggested that a Standard Operating Procedure could be issued, prescribing the manner in which a child's identity may be shared with schools, hospitals, and other agencies only on a need-to-know basis, with supervisory oversight. The court also suggested that the investigating officers could obtain a written undertaking from every person to whom the child's identity is disclosed during the investigation, and record the reasons for such disclosure.

The court also noted that there were barriers arising out of mandatory reporting of cases. The court noted that the fear of exposure and police involvement deterred the families from reporting incidents. The court suggested that the hospitals could develop standard consent forms enabling the minor and her parents to record whether they consent to disclosure of identifying particulars and prescribe a procedure for communicating reports to the police without revealing the child's identity.

On noting that the potency tests were still being continued despite their limited evidentiary value, the court suggested that the tests could be discontinued and whenever paternity or identity is in issue, biological samples could be collected for DNA analysis.

The court also took note of the delay in recording the statement of the victim child, which prolongs the anxiety and repeated recollection of trauma. The court suggested mandatory adherence to the 30-day timeline to minimise stress and anxiety for the victim child.

The court listed out the issues and suggestions in its order while disposing of a plea, seeking directions to the State to file a curative petition against the acquittal of the accused in the rape and murder of a 7-year-old child in Chennai in 2017. The petitioner had alleged that the acquittal was obtained by committing fraud on the Supreme Court.

It may be noted that in October last year, the Supreme Court acquitted Dashwanth after holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the vital circumstances, such as the CCTV camera footage, the confessional disclosure statement, the FSL report, etc. The Supreme Court had thus set aside the 2018 judgment of the Madras High Court, which upheld his conviction and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

The petitioner argued that though initially the Supreme Court had issued a limited notice regarding the question of sentence, it had later taken the criminal appeal on file, noting that the High Court had granted leave to appeal.

The petitioner submitted that through an RTI response, it was revealed that the High Court had not issued any Certificate to appeal in the matter, and in the absence of such a certificate, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter on merits.

When the matter was heard by the court, the State informed the court that it intended to file a curative petition in the case. The court had taken the submission on record and decided to close the plea.

In the order copy, which was issued on August 10, the court also took note of the systematic laps that existed in the implementation of the POCSO Act in the State and made suggestions.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. N. Ravichandran

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Additional Govt. Pleader, Mr. C. R. Malarvannan Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

Case No: WP 18454 of 2026