New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said there were not enough judges in trial courts in the country to implement its directions like setting up of a special court in each district to exclusively deal with sexual offences against children under the POCSO law.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale was hearing a suo motu case of 2019 titled: “In Re Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents”.
The apex court in 2019 passed a slew of directions, including setting up a centrally-funded designated court in each district with over 100 FIRs under the POCSO Act to deal exclusively with cases of sexual offences against children.
During a hearing on Tuesday, Justice Bela M Trivedi commented, “We are not even getting enough judges for regular courts,” suggesting a widespread shortage of judicial officers across the country.
Since then, the court has issued several directions to state governments and sought updates on the establishment of special courts and the appointment of prosecutors. In 2020, the court even ordered the creation of a national scheme for providing quick compensation to victims of POCSO offences.
On Tuesday, the matter was presented before a bench consisting of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma.
Senior advocate HS Phoolka, representing the child rights group Bachpan Bachao Andolan, informed the court that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2019 to establish around 1,027 special fast-track courts across districts with a high number of POCSO cases had not been fully implemented.
Phoolka noted, “Only about 757 courts have been set up, and even those haven’t been established properly.”
In response, Justice Trivedi observed that the issue extended beyond the creation of special courts, emphasising the larger problem of insufficient judges for all courts, not just fast-track ones.
“Let there be regular courts now. Order has been complied with partly. We cannot have ad hoc courts for everything. We are not even getting enough judges for all courts,” observed Justice Trivedi.
“Corrective measures we will see if there are any directions to be issued… How many fast track courts are established by the center is not before us!,” observed Justice Trivedi.
The court further noted that it was not currently examining how many fast-track courts had been established by the central government but indicated that it would consider issuing further directions if necessary.
Senior Advocate V Giri, acting as amicus curiae (a legal advisor to assist the court in the case), informed the bench that multiple applications had expanded the scope of the original petition. The bench has now directed the amicus curiae to file a detailed note outlining the developments in the case, so the issues can be addressed comprehensively.
