Most POCSO courts in the State do not conform to the guidelines under the POCSO Act and have inadequate facilities, the Kerala High Court observed after inspecting district courts, directing the State to ensure conformity and to disclose how many additional POCSO courts are needed, and taking up the mandate for exclusive Public Prosecutors.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has directed the State to take immediate steps to bring the courts trying cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act into conformity with the guidelines prescribed under the statute, observing that, on its own visits to the district courts, it had found that most POCSO courts do not conform to those guidelines and that their facilities are inadequate [District Court Bar Association and Another v. State of Kerala and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., hearing a public interest litigation filed by the District Court Bar Association, passed a series of directions aimed at strengthening the infrastructure and prosecutorial framework for POCSO trials in the State.
‘Most POCSO courts do not conform to the guidelines’
Recording its first-hand findings, the Court noted the shortcomings it had itself observed:
“During the visit to the District Courts, we found that most of the POCSO courts do not conform to the guidelines specified under the POCSO Act. The facilities are also inadequate.”
The Court directed the sixth respondent to file an affidavit disclosing the number of additional courts required for POCSO cases, taking into account the Supreme Court’s directions on the subject and the practice followed in different High Courts. The affidavit is also to indicate which courts trying POCSO cases do not conform to the POCSO guidelines. Immediate steps, the Court directed, should be taken to ensure that such courts conform to the guidelines, and where there is any inadequacy of space, the State Government shall move to provide suitable rooms with all infrastructure for the functioning of the POCSO courts in conformity with the guidelines.
Exclusive Public Prosecutors for POCSO courts
On the appointment of Public Prosecutors, counsel for the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents, In Re, submitting that the appointment of exclusive Public Prosecutors for POCSO courts is a mandate, and that the State had failed to fulfil that obligation. The Court extracted paragraph 10 of that judgment, in which the Supreme Court had directed the States to appoint exclusive Public Prosecutors in all courts set up exclusively for POCSO cases, and had emphasised specialised training:
“We direct all the States who are present before us to take steps to appoint exclusive Public Prosecutors in all the courts which have been set up exclusively for POCSO cases. We request the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to ensure that in the Judicial Academy of the State special programmes are developed so that these Special Public Prosecutors attached to POCSO Courts are imparted training not only in law but also in child psychology, child behaviour, health issues, etc.”
In that judgment, the Supreme Court had also requested the Director of the National Judicial Academy to develop a programme to train “master trainers,” who could in turn travel from State to State to train the Special Public Prosecutors attached to POCSO courts, recognising that the National Judicial Academy could not itself train every such prosecutor in the country.
An adjournment was sought on behalf of the Director General of Prosecution. The Court listed the matter for October 14, 2026, directing that the DGP consider paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court’s decision and make appropriate submissions on the adjourned date, and that the sixth respondent file the affidavit as directed in the meantime.
Why it matters
The order addresses a gap that lies at the heart of the POCSO Act’s effectiveness: the difference between the child-friendly, specialised system the statute envisages and what exists on the ground. The POCSO Act and its rules contemplate dedicated Special Courts with child-friendly infrastructure, arrangements to ensure that a child victim is not exposed to the accused, in-camera proceedings, and the presence of support persons, precisely because the ordinary trial setting can re-traumatise a child witness. The High Court’s finding, on its own inspection, that most POCSO courts in the State fall short of these guidelines and lack adequate facilities is a significant institutional acknowledgment that the promise of the Act is not fully matched by its implementation.
Equally important is the emphasis on exclusive, specially-trained Public Prosecutors. The Supreme Court’s direction in the Alarming Rise case recognised that prosecuting offences against children requires not just legal skill but sensitivity to child psychology and behaviour, and that dedicated prosecutors, properly trained, are essential to securing convictions without further harming the child. By calling for an affidavit on the additional courts required, insisting on conformity with the guidelines, and pressing the State on the appointment of exclusive prosecutors, the Court has sought to convert these long-standing mandates into measurable, time-bound action. With the matter listed for mid-October and an affidavit awaited, the case will test how far the State moves to close the gap between the POCSO framework on paper and its functioning in the courts.
Case Title: District Court Bar Association and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(PIL) No. 75 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., High Court of Kerala
Date of Order: September 23, 2026
Next Listed: October 14, 2026