The apex court noted while majority states, with the funding from the Centre, complied with the directions for setting up exclusive courts for POCSO cases, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, and a few other states, more POCSO courts were required given the pendency of such cases
The top court asked states to set up two designated courts in districts where the number of pending cases of child abuse under the POCSO Act was more than 300. File Pic
The Supreme Court on Thursday instructed the Centre to establish dedicated POCSO courts on a “top priority basis” to exclusively handle cases involving sexual offences against children.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale noted that the lack of sufficient exclusive courts for POCSO cases has led to delays, preventing trials from being completed within the timelines mandated by the law, reported news agency PTI.
"It is therefore expected that the union of India and the state governments shall take appropriate steps to sensitise the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on a top priority basis," the bench said, reported PTI.
The top court further directed the filing of charge sheets within the mandatory period stipulated in law, besides completing trials within the prescribed time frame.
The apex court noted while majority states, with the funding from the Centre, complied with the directions for setting up exclusive courts for POCSO cases, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, and a few other states, more POCSO courts were required given the pendency of such cases.
According to PTI, the top court had previously directed senior advocate and amicus curiae V Giri and senior advocate Uttara Babbar to submit state-wise details on the status of POCSO courts.
The apex court was hearing a petition underlining the "alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents" in a suo motu case.
The top court asked states to set up two designated courts in districts where the number of pending cases of child abuse under the POCSO Act was more than 300.
It made it clear that its July 2019 direction to set up one court in each district with more than 100 FIRs under POCSO Act meant a designated court would only deal with such cases under the law.
President Murmu invokes Article 143; questions Supreme Court's opinion on deadline ruling on state Bills
In a firm rebuttal to the Supreme Court's April 8 verdict, which imposed deadlines on the Governor and the President for deciding on state Bills in the Tamil Nadu government versus Governor case, President Murmu has questioned the validity of such a ruling, emphasising that the Constitution does not prescribe any such time frames.
The President's response highlights that Article 200 of the Constitution of India delineates the powers of the Governor and the procedures for granting or withholding assent to Bills, as well as reserving a Bill for the President's consideration. However, Article 200 does not specify any timeline for the Governor to exercise these constitutional options.
Similarly, Article 201 outlines the President's authority and process for assenting to or withholding assent from Bills, but it does not impose any deadlines or procedures for the exercise of these constitutional powers.
(With PTI inputs)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
