Supreme Court urges Advocates to not take up POCSO cases filed in vengeance

The Supreme Court recently highlighted the misuse of the POCSO Act as a grim societal chasm - on the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to manipulate the law to their advantage. 

Noting that no amount of judicial vigilance against misuse can alone bridge this ever-widening gap, the Supreme Court has added that the first line of defence lies with the Bar i.e., the body that translates grievance into action and is the gatekeeper of justice at the point of entry.

"When it comes to matters such as these, the responsibility of the advocate is profound – to examine the allegations with detachment and necessary discretion and to counsel restraint when grievance masks vengeance and to refuse participation in litigation when it can be seen that an ulterior motive is sought to be agitated under the guise of seeking protection of the law. It is only when the Bar takes a principled, proactive role, that the legislation intended as a shield can be stopped from being twisted into a weapon. A lawyer who tempers aggression with calm, reason and rationality, protects not only the opposing party from unwarranted harm but also the client from the long-term consequences of frivolous or malicious litigation, including adverse orders, and judicial censure", a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh has said.

The Supreme Court bench has further said that by taking a principled stand, the Bar acts as a crucial filter, preventing the legal system from being overwhelmed by abuse masquerading as enforcement. 

"Such self-regulation strengthens public faith in the profession, ensures that judicial time is reserved for genuine disputes, and reinforces the foundational idea that law is a means of justice, not a weapon of convenience. In this sense, the ethical vigilance of lawyers is not ancillary to justice, it is indispensable to it. When they do not do so, the chasm alluded to above widens. Society also must match institutional reform with moral awakening. The intent and object of these legislations must be at the forefront when a person wishes to lodge a complaint thereunder. The misuse of these laws is a mirror to the opportunistic and self-centered view that pervades the application of law. It is only through discipline, integrity and courage that these problems can be remedied and rooted out. Any legislative amendment or judicial direction will remain lack-luster without this deeper change," it has said.

Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of these laws, the Supreme Court has directed that its judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc.    

Justice Karol's bench made these observations while setting aside a series of directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in a bail plea in a POCSO case wherein it directed constitution of a medical board to determine the age of the victim.

It has said that high courts cannot order mandatory medical age determination of victims at the stage of bail in cases under POCSO Act and that the High Court’s direction of medical age determination of victims at the stage of bail exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 439 (grant of bail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

"The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to dispatch forthwith a copy of this judgment to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, for necessary follow-up action, as also information to the Trial Courts", the bench ordered accordingly.

Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs. ANURUDH & ANR