POCSO | Success Of Protection Laws Depends On Child's Emotional Well Being: Madras High Court Moots State-Wide Sensitisation Programme

“The true success of child protection jurisprudence will not be measured solely by conviction statistics, but by whether children emerging from the justice system feel protected, heard, reassured, rehabilitated, and emotionally safe. For ultimately, the greatest constitutional obligation of every civilised society is not merely to punish wrongdoers, but to preserve the dignity, emotional well-being, and future of its children,” the court observed.

Justice Victoria Gowri was dealing with 4 petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings which were initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. During the course of the proceedings, the court concluded that the four cases were initiated falsely, by coercing the child.

The court observed that a child, who is made to narrate a false sexual narrative at the instance of an adult may suffer emotional confusion, social fear, shame and psychological burden. The court also remarked that the investigating agencies should display highest degree of sensitivity before registering allegations under the POCSO Act.

The court thus asked the Secretary to Government (Home Department), Secretary (Directorate of Social Welfare), and the Secretary (Department of Law and Justice) to consider framing and formulating a coordinated State wide sensitisation programme titled “Singapen Sensitisation Workshop”, which will focus on:

• trauma-sensitive implementation of the POCSO Act,
• child psychology and emotional wellbeing,
• responsible handling of child victims,
• prevention of misuse of POCSO provisions,
• sensitivity during recording of statements,
• ethical child interviewing techniques, and awareness regarding Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

The court ordered that the workshop be conducted in a phased manner for all female police stations in the State of Tamil Nadu from the cadre of Superintendent of Police and below, Regional Psychologists attached to the Department of Child Welfare and Special Services, all District Social Welfare Officers, Protection Officers appointed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and all District-level Chairpersons and Members of Child Welfare Committees.

The court also directed the authorities to consider formulating a coordinated sensitisation and training programme for stakeholders involved in implementation of the POCSO Act. The court added that the Inspector General of Police, Singapen Special Striking Force and the Secretary, Directorate of Social Welfare should jointly coordinate the implementation of the training programme throughout the state.

The court noted that in all four cases, the children were in need of counselling. The court highlighted that the institutions should ensure that the child is protected not only from sexual offence but also from the emotional violence of false cases.

“Childhood is not a battlefield for adult vengeance. Courts, institutions and society alike bear a collective constitutional duty to ensure that children are protected not only from sexual offences, but also from the emotional violence of fabricated accusations and irresponsible institutional processes,” the court said.

At the same time, the court highlighted that the objective of the order was not to weaken the implementation of POCSO Act, but to strengthen its humane and child centric enforcement through deeper institutional introspection.

The court thus added that the sensitisation workshops should not be merely seen as an administrative exercise but the beginning of a larger institutional transformation in the manner in which child-related offences are perceived, investigated and handled across the State.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.P.Selvakumar, M/s.T.Seeni Syed Amma, For M/s. Roy and Roy Associates, Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan, Mr.P.Akarathi

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side), Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. side), Mr.Stevenson, Mr.K.R.Laxman, Mr.Ananda Padmanabhan, Senior counsel, For Mr.J.Vishnu, Mr.S.Babu, Mr.M.Balamurugan, Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior counsel

Case Title: Mikavel v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 232

Case No: Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,