The Bombay High Court on Monday directed a public interest litigant, who was seeking proper enforcement of POCSO Act, to approach the High Court Committee on POCSO matters, with his suggestions.The petition particularly sought directions to the Special Courts to ensure that the testimony of the minor victim is recorded within one month, as per Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act. The ad-hoc...
The Bombay High Court on Monday directed a public interest litigant, who was seeking proper enforcement of POCSO Act, to approach the High Court Committee on POCSO matters, with his suggestions.
The petition particularly sought directions to the Special Courts to ensure that the testimony of the minor victim is recorded within one month, as per Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act. The ad-hoc committee overseeing POCSO matters comprises of Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Bharati Dangre.
"We have no doubt that appropriate decisions will be taken by the committee, and appropriate directions may be passed on the administrative side", the court observed.
The petition challenged non-compliance of Section 35 of the POCSO Act read with section 309 of CrPC and the directions of Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Shrivastava v. Union of India.
The PIL also sought a direction to all Special POCSO Courts for a time bound conclusion of cases.
The petitioner Rashmi Taylor is a social activist who was appointed as a support person in a POCSO case.
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai for the petitioner said that it is important to record the statement as soon as possible to prevent re-victimisation and continuing trauma of the victim. Further, the child victim may forget the details of the incident with passage of time, Desai said.
The court was not inclined to deal with the petition on the judicial side as powers under Article 226 of the Constitution do not extend to a judicial body, having regard to Apex Court decision in Naresh Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra. "It can be done under 227 but not 226," the Chief Justice said.
Case Title: Rashmi Taylor v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367