Will not wait for data on POCSO cases, says SC and passes slew of directions

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that for speedy justice in child rape cases, directions can be passed without waiting for additional data on cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

"Instead of adjourning the case for receipt of further/additional data, we are inclined to proceed to issue certain directions," said a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose.

The court was hearing a matter it had taken up on its own on the "alarming rise" in the number of rape incidents against children.

S S Rathi, Registrar of the apex court who was asked to compile data of total pending cases under the POCSO Act across the country, sought some more time but the bench said that the exercise can continue without coming in its way to pass directions.

"Why we need more data. We will pass directions," the bench said.

The apex court is also getting the assistance of senior advocate V Giri, who is assisting it as an amicus curiae in the matter, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The bench told Solicitor General, who was not initially present during the hearing, that "this is a matter which should be the top priority" for him.

The bench was not in agreement with Mehta's suggestion that a high court judge be entrusted with task of supervising the setting up of centrally funded designated court in each districts to deal exclusively with POCSO cases.

"It is very attractive and tempting suggestion but we are saying no. In most high courts, a judge has causelist of 400 cases which is frightening for a high court judge. In the Supreme Court we have 50-60 cases on Monday and Friday," the bench said.

During the hearing, Rathi said he consulted the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for data but it is unfortunate that the commission is not collecting it and he had to collect information from six other sources, including National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and amicus curiae.

His submission drew sharp reaction from the bench, which said "what they are doing for all these years."