Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case
Trending Today JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV HUMERA NIYAZI Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case Supreme Court Upholds Right to Business Closure Under Article 19(1)(g): Harinagar Sugar Mills Case Explained Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India’s 2023 judgment in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India mandates the appointment of support persons for child victims under the POCSO Act, reinforcing the constitutional duty to protect children’s rights during legal proceedings. Introduction: Strengthening Child Protection Under the Law In a landmark judgment dated October 18, 2023, the Supreme Court of India in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India took a significant step toward ensuring child-friendly legal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The ruling emphasized the mandatory role of “support persons” to assist and protect child victims of sexual abuse throughout the legal process. By reinforcing the constitutional and statutory obligations of the State, the Court aimed to prevent further trauma to vulnerable child victims and ensure justice is accessible, empathetic, and child-centric. Case Background: Bachpan Bachao’s Fight for Children’s Rights The petitioner, Bachpan Bachao Andolan, a prominent child rights NGO, filed the petition to address serious gaps in the implementation of the POCSO Act—specifically the underuse of support persons as outlined in the POCSO Rules, 2020. A 2019 Supreme Court Registrar report revealed that support persons were appointed in only 4% of POCSO cases, highlighting a concerning lack of structured support for child victims. A particularly shocking case from Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, involving the alleged gang rape of a 13-year-old girl, prompted urgent judicial intervention. Key Legal Issue Is the Appointment of Support Persons a Legal Obligation? The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the State is constitutionally and statutorily obligated to provide a support person for child victims during the investigation and trial process under the POCSO Act, and what mechanisms must be put in place to ensure uniform enforcement. Arguments Presented Petitioner’s View (Bachpan Bachao Andolan) The petitioner argued that Section 39 of the POCSO Act requires the mandatory appointment of support persons for child victims. They emphasized that leaving the appointment to the discretion of parents or guardians undermines the purpose of the Act. Lack of uniform implementation leads to revictimization and emotional trauma for children navigating the legal system. Support persons play a critical role in offering psychological, emotional, and logistical support to the child. Respondent’s View (Union of India & State of Uttar Pradesh) The respondents agreed on the importance of support but claimed the appointment should be discretionary, based on guardian consent. They cited administrative challenges such as lack of trained personnel, remuneration issues, and infrastructure limitations. Concerns were also raised about potential privacy breaches and the risk of misuse of the support person’s role. Judgment Summary: A Mandate for Child Justice Supreme Court’s Verdict on October 18, 2023 The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of support persons is not optional, but a constitutional duty of the State. The Court underscored that this duty stems from the need to ensure a fair trial, emotional support, and dignity for child victims. Key Directives Issued: The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) must draft model guidelines for the appointment, training, and remuneration of support persons. These guidelines must be implemented uniformly across all States and Union Territories. Authorities must inform parents or guardians about the availability and rights associated with support persons. Impact of the Judgment: Toward a Child-Centric Legal System This landmark ruling strengthens child rights under the POCSO Act, ensuring that support persons become a standard practice in cases involving minors. The judgment aims to: Prevent secondary trauma for victims during legal proceedings. Promote a child-friendly and sensitive judicial environment. Reinforce that child protection is a legal obligation, not a policy choice. Conclusion: A Milestone for Child Welfare in India The 2023 Supreme Court judgment in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India marks a crucial step in making India’s criminal justice system more supportive and humane for child victims. By mandating the appointment of support persons under the POCSO Act, the Court has reaffirmed that protecting children’s dignity and rights is not just desirable—it’s constitutionally essential. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case
