The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the vacancy of judges in the district judiciary, saying that it was resulting in delay of trials at Special Courts created to hear offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Hearing the suo motu case initiated to address the systematic flaws in the POCSO Act, 2012, the Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice PB Varale lamented that even though Special Courts were created, they were overburdened due to the lack of judges.
Senior Advocate VV Giri, appointed as Amicus Curiae in the case, apprised the Bench that various directions have been passed regarding the establishment of special POCSO courts for speedy justice, for the appointment of Special Prosecutors, and for training of persons associated with the process.
The Bench observed that as far as special POCSO courts and Special Public Prosecutors were concerned, both were there. The training of persons associated with the process was an ongoing process, it pointed out, adding that things have been streamlined since the time it initiated suo motu case on the matter.
Regarding a contempt application filed for non-compliance of certain directions, the Apex Court orally observed that various directions passed by the Court, including for speedy trial, were not practically feasible as there are not enough judges to deal with and monitor these cases.
Noting that even at the infantry level in Gujarat, out of 213 posts, only 6-10 were filled up, the top court of the country remarked that while there was adequate infrastructure, there was no person to utilise it.
Senior Advocate Giri suggested that an updated status report be sought from all States to examine whether compliance has taken place or not. He further recommended seeking an updated report from Registrar Generals of all High Courts to examine the pendency of POCSO cases.
The Bench orally observed that the Apex Court and High Courts were already monitoring several cases. Every court had a limitation on how long it could monitor a certain case.
It was difficult to give further directions just for the sake of it. Ordering the High Courts to furnish data would be a futile exercise, it added.
The top court of the country said that every High Court had real-time data from where the data on the pendency of POCSO cases could be gathered.
The Bench eventually adjourned the matter to March 25, making an oral observation that on the next occasion, it would dispose of the matter.