Kerala HC orders exclusive prosecutors for POCSO cases and asks state to consider 13 dedicated courts for child protection cases

The petitioners, a District Court Bar Association and an advocate, challenged a Government Order permitting Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO cases to conduct non-POCSO cases, including proceedings under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

The Director General of Prosecution supported that arrangement, relying on the JJ Act’s definition of “Children’s Court”.

The Court also considered an affidavit concerning POCSO Court infrastructure and the establishment of additional permanent, exclusive POCSO Courts.

1. Whether Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO cases may be permitted to conduct non-POCSO cases, including cases under the JJ Act.

2. Whether further steps were required to establish permanent, exclusive POCSO Courts and bring existing POCSO Court infrastructure into compliance with applicable requirements.

Section 32(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), as reproduced by the Court, requires appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for every Special Court “for conducting cases only under the provisions of the Act”.

In Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 with W.P. (C) No. 819 of 2019, the Supreme Court emphasised that POCSO prosecutors must be exclusive to POCSO cases and receive training in child psychology, behaviour and related matters.

Section 2(20) of the JJ Act defines “Children’s Court” to include, where existing, a POCSO Special Court; that definition was relied on by the State in support of permitting prosecutors to conduct JJ Act cases.

The Court treated the Supreme Court’s direction and the express wording of Section 32(1) as requiring POCSO Special Public Prosecutors to handle POCSO cases exclusively.

The JJ Act definition cited by the State did not displace that exclusivity requirement. Accordingly, the Government Order authorising POCSO prosecutors to conduct non-POCSO cases could not be sustained.

On infrastructure, the Court relied on the affidavit before it and directed consideration of additional exclusive Courts and remedial steps for existing Courts.

It directed the State to appoint prosecutors exclusively for POCSO cases within six weeks.

The State was also directed to consider establishing the remaining 13 permanent, exclusive POCSO Special Courts and communicate its decision to the High Court Administration within four weeks of communication of the judgment.

The Registrar (District Judiciary) was directed to ensure compliance of POCSO Courts with statutory requirements and to rectify identified shortcomings; the State was directed to provide the necessary financial and other assistance.