Is POCSO Act Gender Neutral? Supreme Court To Consider; Stays Trial Against Woman Accused

The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a plea filed by a woman accused of sexually assaulting a minor boy, in which she has challenged the applicability of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 to female accused.Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioner Archana Patil, submitted that Sections 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c) of the POCSO Act are gender specific and have no application to the case of the petitioner.Recording the submission, a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ordered, “Issue notice. In the meantime, further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.”Sections 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c) define penetrative sexual assault against children and refer to the perpetrator using the pronouns “he” and “his”. Section 3 of the POCSO Act reads –“3. Penetrative sexual assault.—A person is said to commit “penetrative sexual assault” if— (a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.”The petition challenges the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated August 18, 2025, which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against Patil. The High Court had held that the POCSO Act is gender neutral and that offences under Sections 4 and 6 can be alleged against a woman.The case arises from a complaint by the boy's parents alleging that Patil, their 48-year-old neighbour, had sexually assaulted their 13-year-old son between February and June 2020 when he went to her house for art lessons. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) and 6 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, leading to registration of a criminal case before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court-I), Bengaluru.In her petition before the High Court, Patil had contended that the provisions of the POCSO Act invoked against her were gender specific and could not apply to a female accused. The High Court, however, rejected this argument, holding that the Act protects all children, irrespective of gender, and that its provisions extend equally to male and female offenders.“The Act, being a progressive enactment, is intended to safeguard the sanctity of childhood. It is rooted in gender neutrality with its beneficient object being the protection of all children, irrespective of sex. The Act is thus, gender neutral. Sections 3 and 5 which form the foundation for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, delineate various forms of assault. Although certain provisions may employ gendered pronouns, the preamble and purpose of the Act, render such usage inclusive. Therefore, it is inclusive of both male and female”, the High Court had observed.Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15777/2025Case Title – Archana Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Is POCSO Act Gender Neutral? Supreme Court To Consider; Stays Trial Against Woman Accused

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags