Madras High Court Asks Judicial Academy To Provide Special Training To Judicial Officers Over Non-Compliance With S.35 POCSO Act

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar made the request after noting that many special courts were not complying with the mandate under Section 35 of the Act, which required the courts to examine the victim child within 30 days from the date of taking cognisance of the chargesheet.

The court told the Judicial Academy that the training session should sensitise the officers about the statutory requirement and the importance of promptly taking cognisance of chargesheets.

“The Director of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy is also requested to conduct a special training session for the Presiding Officers of the Special Courts dealing with cases under the POCSO Act, 2012. This session shall aim to sensitize them to:

(a) the statutory requirement to record the evidence of the child victim within 30 days from the date of cognizance of the charge sheet; and

(b) the importance of promptly taking cognizance of charge sheets, including those filed electronically, within a reasonable time and without undue delay”.

The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman whose husband was detained under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, holding him to be a “Sexual Offender”. The petitioner's husband was accused of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 14-year-old on multiple occasions.

During the hearing, the court noted that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet had been filed by the prosecution, which was also taken on file by the special judge. However, despite the same, the trial had not commenced.

Noting an increasing pattern of cases in similar nature, the court had asked the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy to file an independent affidavits giving details of cases in which detention orders had been passed to ensure that the evidence of the child victim and the defacto complainant are recorded within the period of detention.

On receiving the affidavit of the officers, the court found that alarmingly, 395 cases were pending of a similar nature. Seeing the number of cases pending, the court noted that barring a negligible number of cases, the presiding officers of the Special courts had failed to examine the victim child within 30 days of taking cognisance of the chargesheet.

Noting that there had been a total absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions under the POCSO Act, the court observed that it was imperative that the High court issue a circular reminding the Presiding Officers of the Special Courts about the necessity to comply with the said provision in letter and spirit.

The court thus directed the Registrar General of the High Court to reissue a circular on compliance of the section. The court held that it was necessary as the best practices prescribed in the said circular for handling POCSO cases have not been followed in majority of the POCSO cases by the Special Courts.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Maheswaran

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Uma Maheshwari v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 350

Case No: H.C.P.(MD)No.1423 of 2024