POCSO pendency and torturous process further victimise children subjected to sexual abuse

Published 2026-07-07 · Updated 2026-07-07 · 3 min · 397 words

UPSC CSE Context

Why in News: 18,733 POCSO cases pending in Tamil Nadu courts as of June 2026, highlighting systemic delays and inadequate support services. Syllabus Connection: Social Justice: Vulnerable sections, mechanisms for child protection, and challenges in implementation of POCSO Act. Exam Relevance: Relevant for questions on child rights, judicial delays, and gaps in victim support under POCSO. ## Core Issue High pendency and poor support services re-traumatise child sexual abuse victims in Tamil Nadu. Key Development: Despite Supreme Court directive, only 20 POCSO courts exist in 37 districts with over 100 pending cases. Stakeholders:

• Child victims
• Tamil Nadu government
• Madras High Court
• Child Welfare Committees
• Police
• Social Welfare Department
• NGOs like Tulir-CPCHSA ## Static Knowledge High-Value Background:
• POCSO Act, 2012 provides for special courts and child-friendly procedures to minimise trauma. Exam Linkage:
• Useful for questions on implementation gaps in child protection laws and judicial reforms. Concepts in Context:
• Secondary victimisation: re-traumatisation through insensitive procedures.
• Support Person: appointed by CWC to assist child through legal process. Institutions and Mechanisms:
• Child Welfare Committee (CWC): oversees child protection and appoints support persons.
• Juvenile Justice Board: also hears POCSO cases, but hearings are infrequent outside Chennai. ## Dynamic Analysis ### Governance
• Only 20 POCSO courts against requirement of 37, indicating poor infrastructure planning.
• Proposal for 8 new courts in 2023 not implemented, showing bureaucratic delays.
• CWC unnecessarily produces children, increasing secondary victimisation. ### Social Justice
• Lack of support persons leads to missed medical timelines, e.g., delayed abortion at 24 weeks.
• Special Relief under POCSO rarely granted due to poor awareness among families and officials.
• Child witness deposition rooms available only in 16 districts, hindering trauma-sensitive testimony.
• Online FIR filing exists but cases often not numbered, reducing accessibility. ### Legal/Constitutional
• Pendency violates right to speedy trial under Article 21.
• Supreme Court directive not complied with, raising questions of judicial accountability. ## Prelims Takeaways
• POCSO Act, 2012: special court mandate for districts with >100 pending cases. ## Mains Value Addition Arguments:
• Inadequate special courts reflect systemic neglect of child protection infrastructure.
• Lack of awareness about Special Relief forces families to bear immediate costs. Counterpoints:
• Government is developing SOP for support persons to streamline appointments. ## Way Forward
• Expedite establishment of exclusive POCSO courts in all districts with high pendency.
• Ensure timely appointment of support persons and awareness about Special Relief.
• Expand child witness deposition rooms to all districts.
• Streamline CWC procedures to avoid unnecessary production of children.

Primary/reference source: National News