Introduction
In a landmark development, the Supreme Court of India has stayed a controversial judgment delivered by the Rajasthan High Court, which held that procedural safeguards under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, cease once a victim turns 18 during the pendency of the trial. This ruling has significant implications for child victims of sexual offences, legal practitioners, and judicial interpretation of child protection laws in India.
On September 27, 2025, a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued a notice returnable in six weeks on a Special Leave Petition challenging the Rajasthan High Court order dated May 27, 2025. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the High Court’s judgment, ensuring that procedural protections under POCSO continue to operate until further orders.
Background of the Case
The core issue in the petition pertains to Section 33(2) of the POCSO Act, which mandates that all questions during the examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or re-examination of a child victim must be routed through a special court. This provision was enacted to ensure that child victims are not subjected to trauma or intimidation while giving testimony in court.
However, the Rajasthan High Court in its judgment interpreted the term “child” strictly based on chronological age. The High Court held that once the victim attains majority—i.e., turns 18—the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 33(2) of the POCSO Act are no longer mandatory. The court reasoned that the legislation specifically refers to “child” and not “victim,” signaling the legislature’s intention to limit these protections to minors.
Rationale Behind the Rajasthan High Court Judgment
The High Court, while referring to the Supreme Court decision in Ms. Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State, clarified that the term “child” must be interpreted strictly in its biological sense, not based on mental or intellectual age. It further observed that extending these safeguards beyond the age of 18 would amount to judicial legislation and could potentially infringe upon the accused’s right to a fair trial under Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
The Rajasthan High Court did leave room for exceptions. It stated that courts could continue these protections in specific cases if necessary for justice and the psychological welfare of the witness. However, such an extension would require:
- Prior recording of reasons; and
- A competency assessment under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act.
This nuanced approach created a potential legal grey area for cases where victims turn 18 during ongoing POCSO proceedings.
Supreme Court Intervention
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the High Court’s judgment signals the apex court’s cautious approach towards child protection laws and procedural safeguards. The bench explicitly stated:
“One of the issues arising in this petition is whether the child victim under the POCSO Act, 2012, who has turned major during the pendency of the proceedings would continue to have the benefit of sub-section 2 of Section 33 of the POCSO Act. Issue notice, returnable in six weeks. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the High Court, shall remain stayed.”
This stay ensures that victims who attain majority during a trial will continue to benefit from POCSO’s procedural safeguards until the Supreme Court delivers a final verdict.
Legal and Social Implications
The Supreme Court’s intervention raises several critical issues for judicial interpretation, legal practice, and the rights of victims:
- Child Protection Beyond Age 18: While POCSO was originally designed for minors, the stay implies that procedural safeguards might continue to apply to victims who turn 18 during the trial, acknowledging the enduring vulnerability of victims irrespective of their chronological age.
- Balancing Fair Trial and Victim Rights: The High Court’s judgment emphasized the accused’s right to a fair trial. However, the Supreme Court’s stay highlights the necessity of balancing this right with the victim’s right to a trauma-free testimony, thereby reinforcing the principle that procedural safeguards for child victims are not merely formalities but essential protections.
- Judicial Precedents and Legislative Intent: This case underscores the tension between strict statutory interpretation and the broader objectives of child protection legislation. While the legislature defines “child” in clear terms, courts often face the challenge of interpreting laws in a manner that advances the spirit of justice.
- Impact on Ongoing POCSO Cases: Practitioners and courts now face uncertainty regarding procedural requirements in cases where victims turn 18 mid-trial. This stay effectively freezes the High Court’s interpretation, maintaining the application of Section 33(2) safeguards until the Supreme Court provides clarity.
Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners
For advocates and law firms dealing with sexual offences cases:
- It is crucial to monitor Supreme Court notices and final judgments in SLPs concerning POCSO safeguards.
- Ensuring that child victims receive procedural protections, even if they attain majority during trial, may become a normative practice until the Supreme Court delivers its judgment.
- Lawyers representing accused persons should prepare to navigate both fair trial rights and victim protection measures, keeping in mind the evolving judicial stance on Section 33(2).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s stay of the Rajasthan High Court judgment is a significant step in reinforcing the protections for victims of sexual offences under the POCSO Act. This intervention ensures that procedural safeguards do not arbitrarily lapse once a victim turns 18 during trial, maintaining the legislative intent of protecting vulnerable individuals from trauma during judicial proceedings.
As India continues to strengthen child protection laws, this case highlights the judiciary’s pivotal role in balancing statutory interpretation, victims’ rights, and the fundamental principles of a fair trial. The legal community and child rights advocates will be closely watching the Supreme Court’s final decision, which is likely to have long-term implications for POCSO litigation and child protection jurisprudence in India.
Also Read
Supreme Court Issues Notice in Contempt Plea Over Bhopal Gas Victims’ Medical Care
