The Madras High Court has directed the State government and the High Court Registry to file detailed reports on the functioning of courts dealing with cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) across Tamil Nadu.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the Registry to submit a comprehensive report on the total number of POCSO cases pending in every district of the State.
The Court also sought details on the number of courts presently functioning for POCSO cases in each district, the number of courts where presiding officers need to be posted, the number of new courts required and the infrastructure needed for quick disposal of such cases.
“Learned Counsel appearing for the High Court as well as the State are directed to file detailed Reports with regard to the functioning of the POCSO Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu giving all facts and figures,” the Court ordered on June 22.
The matter will be heard next on July 7.
The order was passed in a writ petition filed by a sexual assault survivor seeking directions to ensure speedy trials in rape, sexual offence and POCSO cases across Tamil Nadu.
Earlier, on May 27, a Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan had passed urgent directions in the same case, after noting that the petitioner was the victim of a heinous sexual crime allegedly committed by police personnel.
The case was registered by the All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The final report had been filed and the case was taken on file before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.
The petitioner told the Court that though the case had been taken on file on December 11, 2025, the trial had not begun.
The Court was also informed that the accused police personnel had already been dismissed from service on October 2, 2025.
“We fail to understand as to why the learned trial Judge has not speeded up the enquiry till date,” the earlier Bench had observed.
It had also held that mere pendency of a revision petition by the accused against the dismissal of a discharge plea need not stall the trial.
The trial court was directed to dispose of the discharge petition filed by the second accused within seven days.
If the outcome was in favour of the prosecution and no interim order was obtained from a higher court within ten days thereafter, the trial was directed to be completed by July 31, 2026, by hearing the matter on a day-to-day basis.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates S Kamalakannan and Jayasudha.
Advocate General Vijay Narayan appeared for the State, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani.
Advocate B Vijay appeared for the High Court Registry.
[Read Order]