SUPREME COURT STAYS RAJASTHAN HC RULING THAT REMOVED POCSO SAFEGUARDS AFTER VICTIM TURNED 18 DURING TRIAL:

On Friday, the Supreme Court stayed a Rajasthan High Court ruling which had held that the procedural safeguards under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) cease to apply once a victim turns 18 during the pendency of the trial. A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued notice on a petition challenging the High Court’s May 27, 2025 order. The notice has been made returnable in six weeks, and until then, the effect and operation of the impugned order will remain stayed.

The central issue before the Supreme Court is whether the protections under Section 33(2) of the POCSO Act, which regulate the mode of questioning during the examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination of a child, should continue to apply if the victim attains majority during the course of proceedings. Section 33(2) mandates that questions posed to a child must be routed through the special court in order to avoid intimidation and ensure sensitivity while recording evidence.

The Rajasthan High Court, in the judgment under challenge, had taken the view that these procedural safeguards are contingent upon the victim’s age and are strictly applicable only when the victim qualifies as a “child” under the statute. According to the High Court, once a victim reaches the age of 18, the statutory protections are no longer mandatory. It emphasised that the legislature deliberately used the term “child” rather than “victim” in Section 33(2), reflecting its intention to confine the procedural benefits exclusively to children.

In its reasoning, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Ms. Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State, where the term “child” was interpreted strictly in its biological sense, not on the basis of mental or intellectual maturity. Applying this principle, the High Court held that extending procedural protections under Section 33(2) beyond the age of 18 would amount to judicial legislation. It warned that such an extension could undermine the accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

At the same time, the High Court did not entirely rule out the possibility of extending protections in exceptional cases. It held that courts may grant such safeguards if they are necessary for the psychological welfare of the witness or in the interest of justice, but only after recording specific reasons. It further required that such extensions must be preceded by a competency assessment of the witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act to ensure that the rights of the accused are not compromised.

Challenging this interpretation, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court. They argued that stripping victims of these safeguards mid-trial, merely because they have turned 18, defeats the purpose of the POCSO Act, which is to provide a child-friendly environment for victims of sexual offences and to prevent re-traumatisation during judicial proceedings.

Represented by advocates Adwaita Sharma, Kartika Sharma, and Udian Sharma (AoR), the petitioners contended that the Rajasthan High Court’s narrow reading of the law unjustly curtailed statutory protections and risked deterring victims from testifying freely and without fear.

The Supreme Court, while issuing notice, acknowledged that the petition raised a significant question regarding the continuing applicability of child-protective safeguards once the victim attains majority during trial. By staying the High Court’s ruling, it has ensured that, at least for the time being, the safeguards under Section 33(2) remain in operation. The matter will now be taken up for further hearing in six weeks.