.jpg)
The Bombay High Court instructed a public interest plaintiff seeking better POCSO Act enforcement to submit his recommendations to the High Court Committee on POCSO Matters. According to Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act, the petition specifically requested instructions to the Special Courts to make sure the testimony of the child victim is recorded within one month. The petition contested the POCSO Act's Section 35 and Section 309 of the CrPC's noncompliance. Additionally, a directive to all Special POCSO Courts for a deadline-bound resolution of cases was requested in the PIL.
In the PIL in POCSO, the issue raised before the Bombay High Court was:
How can special courts ensure timely testimony of minors?
With regard to the issue, the court held that they have no doubt that the committee will make the proper judgments, and that the administrative side may pass the proper orders.
The court did not want to deal with the petition on the judicial side since a judicial body is not granted the authority under Article 226 of the Constitution; instead, that authority can be used under Article 227 but not 226.
Social activist Rashmi Taylor, the petitioner, was chosen as a support person in a POCSO case. Senior attorney Mihir Desai representing the petitioner argued that it is crucial to record the statement as soon as possible in order to prevent the victim from becoming re-victimized and from suffering more anguish. Additionally, as time passes, the young victim may forget the specifics of the incident.
The court categorically stated that,
“We consider it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioner, who has been working to uplift victims of sexual assault, to approach the committee and we are sure appropriate steps would be taken by it.”
Hence, the court stated that the issues raised in the PIL were administrative in nature and hence, the petitioner should appeal to the committee formed to look into the matters arising out of the POCSO Act.