Child Victims of Sexual Abuse are the Most Vulnerable; Statutory Rights Key to Their Empowerment: Allahabad HC

Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In the case at hand, court denied bail to Rajendra Prasad, who is accused of trafficking his 14-year-old daughter for sexual exploitation.

The Allahabad High Court recently emphasized the critical importance of ensuring statutory rights for child victims under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, stating that realization of these rights is the key to empower them to engage with the legal process on a fair footing.

While hearing a bail plea in a child abuse case, court expressed concern that the victim, despite being a minor entitled to multiple protections under the POCSO Act, had not been made aware of her rights. The case records revealed that no support person or legal aid was provided, and the State failed to ensure the victim had access to government schemes, medical care, or counseling services.

The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot remarked that child victims of sexual abuse belong to the most vulnerable class of citizens. They are often hindered in their pursuit of justice by circumstances such as trauma, social marginalization, poverty, and a lack of legal awareness, it added. 

Court observed that without the support systems guaranteed by the POCSO Act, child victims are unable to effectively prosecute their cases.

Empowering these victims, the court stressed, is vital to dismantling the barriers that impede their search for justice, and this can only be achieved by ensuring the enforcement of their statutory rights, the single judge bench emphasised. 

Court further emphasized that authorities—including the police, Child Welfare Committees (CWC), District Legal Services Authorities, and medical and administrative bodies—are obligated under the POCSO Act to provide victims with essential support services, such as legal aid, medical specialists, and access to government welfare schemes.

Court also noted that the responsibility is cast on the courts/magistrates considering the bail applications in POCSO offences to ensure that entitlements of the victims are provided and the rights conferred by the said enactment are enforced.

Justice Bhanot pointed out that the rights and entitlements of victims under the POCSO Act must be safeguarded not only during bail proceedings but throughout the trial process.

He stressed that Child Welfare Committees, medical authorities, and police officials must be brought under the jurisdiction of the trial courts to ensure they fulfill their statutory duties.

These bodies must submit reports detailing the support provided to victims, and trial courts are legally bound to review these reports and ensure compliance with the POCSO Act, court stressed. 

"The above mandate of the POCSO Act has to be rigorously followed and meticulously implemented," court said.

Court warned that the current implementation is inadequate and risks frustrating the legislative intent behind the law. "Legislation cannot be reduced to a dead letter by the apathy of the statutory authorities", it said. 

Accordingly, court directed the Uttar Pradesh Secretary of the Department of Women and Child Development to create standardized formats for the reports that Child Welfare Committees must submit during bail hearings.

These reports should detail the support extended to victims, including counseling, legal aid, and access to government schemes. Court also ordered that regular training programs be conducted for CWC members to ensure compliance with the Act.

In the case at hand, court denied bail to Rajendra Prasad, who is accused of trafficking his 14-year-old daughter for sexual exploitation.

Prasad, who had been in custody since November 2022, had applied for bail on charges under Sections 376 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

Court rejected his bail application, citing the victim's vulnerability and the fact that she had identified Prasad as the principal offender who trafficked her for money.

Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others