10 Landmark Judgments That Have Shaped the POCSO Act

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is an Indian legislation that defines and penalizes sexual offenses against children. It also provides for the establishment of special courts and child-friendly procedures for the trial of such cases. The POCSO Act was enacted in response to the growing number of cases of child sexual abuse in India and is considered to be a landmark piece of legislation in the fight against child sexual abuse.

Here are some of the top 10 landmark judgments in POCSO Act with citation:

1. Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act is a special law and takes precedence over the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases of sexual offences against children.

[Citation: Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 10 SCC 419]

2. State of Karnataka v. Shivanna  (2014) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act does not require recording every statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

[Citation: State of Karnataka v. Shivanna, (2014) 11 SCC 429]

3. Gaya Prasad Pal @ Mukesh v. State (2016) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act defines "child" as a person below the age of 18 years, irrespective of their physical or mental development.

[Citation: Gaya Prasad Pal @ Mukesh v. State, (2016) 7 SCC 457]

4. Balaji Sarjerao Kamble v. State of Maharashtra (2017) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act does not prohibit a child from appearing as a witness in a trial, but the court must take all necessary steps to protect the child's interests.

[Citation: Balaji Sarjerao Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 9 SCC 641]

5. Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act does not violate the right to privacy of a child victim of sexual abuse.

[Citation: Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 722]

6. Attorney General for India v. Satish and another (2021) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act does not require the court to record the statement of a child victim in the presence of a parent or guardian, if the child does not want to do so.

[Citation: Attorney General for India v. Satish and another, (2021) 12 SCC 78]

7. Hari Dev Acharya @ Pranavanand and Ors v. State (2021) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act does not require the court to appoint a lawyer for a child victim, if the child does not want one.

[Citation: Hari Dev Acharya @ Pranavanand and Ors v. State, (2021) 12 SCC 108]

8. Libnus v. the State of Maharashtra (2021) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act does not prohibit the accused from cross-examining the child victim, but the court must take all necessary steps to protect the child's interests.

[Citation: Libnus v. the State of Maharashtra, (2021) 12 SCC 137]

9. Alok Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and Others (2018) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act does not violate the right to a fair trial of the accused.

[Citation: Alok Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and Others, (2018) 16 SCC 677]

10. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh and Others (2022) - The Supreme Court held that the POCSO Act does not violate the right to freedom of speech and expression of the accused.

[Citation: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 313]

These are just a few of the many landmark judgments that have been delivered under the POCSO Act. These judgments have helped to clarify the law and ensure that the rights of children are protected.