NEW DELHI, July 11 — India’s Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, a 2012 law that was meant to streamline the prosecution of crimes against minors, has found itself in the news again this week. The occasion is the Rohit Chandel case, in which the Pant Nagar Police invoked the POCSO Act alongside sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the criminal code that replaced the Indian Penal Code in 2023.
For all the noise that surrounds such cases in the Indian media, the salient point is that the legal framework is actually fairly comprehensive on paper. The POCSO Act defines a child as anyone under 18, and it covers a range of offences: penetrative and non-penetrative sexual assault, sexual harassment, and the use of a child for pornographic purposes.
The penalties start at a minimum of three years and can go up to life imprisonment, with fines attached. The Act also mandates the creation of special courts for speedy trials, child-friendly procedures, and — notably — the mandatory reporting of any such offence. That last provision, mandatory reporting, has been a point of some friction in practice.
It places a legal duty on anyone who has knowledge of an offence to report it, which has occasionally led to awkward situations for institutions like schools and hospitals. But the intent is clear: the law wants no bystanders.
The BNS dimension
What makes the Chandel case slightly different from the usual run of POCSO matters is the involvement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, or BNS. This is the legislation that replaced the Indian Penal Code, effective from July 1, 2024. It was a significant piece of legal housekeeping — the IPC dated from 1860, a colonial-era document that had been amended so many times it resembled a patchwork quilt.
The BNS consolidates and updates criminal law, though critics have argued that the changes are more cosmetic than substantive in many areas. In the Chandel case, the police invoked Section 78 of the BNS, which deals with stalking, and Section 115(2), which covers voluntarily causing hurt.
Stalking as a defined offence is relatively recent in Indian law — it was introduced in the IPC through amendments in 2013, following the public outrage over the Delhi gang rape case. The BNS has carried it forward. Section 115(2) is the standard provision for causing hurt — not grievous hurt, just hurt — which carries a lighter penalty.
The case was heard in a special POCSO court, which remanded Chandel to police custody. This is standard procedure in such matters: the special courts are supposed to handle these cases with more sensitivity and speed than the regular criminal courts, though delays remain a chronic problem across the Indian judicial system.
How the Act works
The POCSO Act, enacted in 2012, was a response to growing concerns about child sexual abuse in India and the absence of a specific, consolidated law to address it. Before POCSO, such cases were prosecuted under various sections of the IPC, which did not always fit the nature of the crime and often resulted in low conviction rates.
The Act was also designed to be child-friendly — it requires that trials be conducted in camera, that the child’s identity be protected, and that the child not be confronted by the accused during testimony. It defines its offences with some precision.
Penetrative sexual assault covers a range of acts and carries a minimum of seven years in prison, extendable to life. Aggravated penetrative sexual assault — which includes offences by people in positions of trust or authority, such as family members or teachers — carries a minimum of ten years and can go up to life imprisonment. Non-penetrative assault carries a minimum of three years.
Sexual harassment, which includes things like making a child watch pornography or repeatedly following a child, carries a minimum of three years as well. Using a child for pornographic purposes is a separate offence, with penalties that depend on the nature of the involvement.
The Act also criminalises the storage of child pornography, which has become more relevant in the age of smartphones and social media. For all the comprehensiveness of the law, implementation has been uneven. Conviction rates under POCSO have improved over the years, but they remain below what activists would like to see.
The mandatory reporting requirement has led to an increase in the number of cases being registered, but it has also created a backlog in the special courts, many of which are understaffed. The Act provides for a trial to be completed within one year, but that deadline is frequently missed.
The Chandel case in context
The Rohit Chandel case, as it has been reported, involves allegations that triggered the application of both the POCSO Act and the BNS provisions. The Pant Nagar Police, which operates in the Uttarakhand region, made the decision to invoke multiple legal provisions — a common practice in Indian criminal law, where prosecutors often throw several sections at a case to ensure that at least one sticks. The special POCSO court’s decision to remand Chandel to police custody suggests that the court found sufficient grounds to hold him for further investigation.
