The Role and Procedures of Special POCSO Courts
The court handling the Chandel case is one of more than 700 special POCSO courts established across India as of 2024. These courts are designated by state governments in consultation with high courts. In Maharashtra, where the actor’s case is being heard, 47 such courts are currently in operation. The creation of this network reflects a deliberate government effort to address a longstanding backlog in the justice system, particularly for cases involving child victims.
The procedures followed in these courts differ markedly from ordinary criminal proceedings. Trials are conducted in-camera to protect the privacy of the minor. Courts are also empowered to use screens or video links to shield the child from direct sight of the accused, and they appoint support persons to guide the minor through the legal process. The POCSO Act mandates that trials be completed within one year; extensions are permitted only when the court records the reasons in writing. Beyond determining guilt or innocence, the court’s responsibilities include rulings on bail, custody arrangements, and the ongoing safety of the child. In the Chandel matter, the remand to police custody is a preliminary step, and the next stages will involve reviewing evidence, hearing arguments on bail, and ensuring the case adheres to the one-year statutory limit.
These special courts also handle cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita when such charges are combined with POCSO offenses, allowing for consolidated proceedings within the same child-friendly framework. The existence of more than 700 such courts underscores the scale of the government’s commitment to creating a dedicated judicial pipeline for child protection cases.
The Legal Foundation and Gaps Before POCSO
The POCSO Act, passed by Parliament in 2012, established a comprehensive legal framework for prosecuting sexual offenses against minors. Before its enactment, child sexual abuse was addressed only through general provisions of the Indian Penal Code and a single state-level law in Goa that dated from 2003. Those older provisions left significant gaps: they failed to cover many male victims and lacked clear definitions suited to the specific harm experienced by children. The law was shaped in part by India’s constitutional guarantee of protection under Article 21 and the country’s commitments as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It recognized a broad range of abusive acts and required child-friendly steps in reporting, evidence gathering, and trial procedures through designated courts.
Demand for stricter child-abuse legislation had been raised repeatedly in public and legal circles for some time prior to 2012. The POCSO Act responded to those calls by creating a dedicated legal architecture that treats the safety of the child as a continuing responsibility of the court. For observers, this means that allegations of the kind now faced by Chandel are handled under procedures that are distinct from ordinary criminal courts, with built-in protections to minimize delay and shield the minor throughout the process.
Implications for the Chandel Case and the Broader System
The actor’s case will now proceed through this specialized channel. The court’s next steps, as outlined by the procedural requirements of the POCSO Act, will include a review of evidence, hearings on bail, and a concerted effort to move the trial toward resolution within the one-year timeline. The special court’s authority extends to ruling on the safety of the child, including any interim custody arrangements, which underscores the ongoing role of the judiciary beyond the narrow question of guilt or innocence.
The existence of more than 700 such courts nationwide, with 47 in Maharashtra alone, signals that the Indian government has made a sustained investment in building infrastructure to handle child protection cases. This network is intended to address the backlog that has long plagued the justice system and to ensure that minors who come forward face a legal process designed to minimize trauma and delay. For the Rohit Chandel case, the proceedings will remain within this framework, with the court’s decisions on evidence, bail, and trial pace guided by the statutory requirements of the 2012 law.
