The Delhi High Court has reiterated that courts are under a binding duty to respond firmly and decisively to cases of sexual violence against children, underscoring that leniency or procedural shortcuts cannot dilute the seriousness of such crimes. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, while deciding a case involving allegations of sexual assault on a minor, made it clear that the judicial system carries an obligation not only to punish offenders but also to safeguard the dignity and psychological well-being of young victims throughout the process.
The case before the Court involved a man accused of sexually assaulting his 13-year-old daughter. While rejecting the accused’s plea for bail, the Court stressed that parental status or familial relationships cannot mitigate accountability when it comes to crimes under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The Court pointed out that in many cases, families may attempt to resolve such matters privately or even pressure victims into silence, but the law treats children as independent rights-holders whose interests cannot be compromised by the actions or preferences of their parents.
Justice Sharma further noted that child victims of sexual assault are particularly vulnerable and may already be facing trauma, shame, and fear. The responsibility of the courts, therefore, extends beyond dispensing punishment—it includes ensuring that judicial proceedings do not inflict secondary harm.
This requires judges to maintain a sensitive, child-friendly approach, safeguarding privacy and dignity at every stage, from the recording of testimony to the evaluation of evidence. The Court observed that any lapse in this duty may not only undermine justice but also erode public trust in the system meant to protect the most vulnerable.
The High Court underlined that the statutory safeguards of the POCSO Act were enacted with the express purpose of recognizing children’s special vulnerabilities. Consequently, judges must apply these provisions rigorously and resist attempts by accused persons to exploit procedural technicalities or pursue out-of-court settlements that trivialize the severity of the allegations. Such private settlements, the Court remarked, may reflect family pressures or social stigma but cannot override the law’s protective framework or negate the independent rights of the child victim.
By linking its observations to the broader role of the judiciary, the Court emphasized that a strong, consistent, and sensitive judicial response is essential to deter such crimes and to reassure society that offences against children will not be tolerated. The message is not limited to this individual case but serves as guidance for trial courts across the country: judges must balance compassion with firmness, ensuring both the accountability of offenders and the protection of victims’ dignity.
The ruling underscores that the responsibility of the judiciary is twofold—delivering stern consequences for perpetrators while simultaneously upholding the highest standards of care, empathy, and protection for victims. In doing so, the High Court reaffirmed that crimes of sexual assault against children are among the gravest offences in law, demanding not only strict punishment but also a judicial process that prioritizes the rights, safety, and healing of child survivors.