Over 1,80,000 cases disposed off by exclusive POCSO courts: WCD

PTI, Nov 28, 2024, 6:16 PM IST

More than 1,80,000 cases have been disposed off by the exclusive POCSO courts, according to official data.

In response to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Minister of State for Women and Child Development Savitri Thakur said the number of exclusive POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) courts in India has seen significant growth under the government’s Fast Track Special Courts (FTSC) scheme, aimed at expediting cases under the POCSO Act and other crimes against women and children.

The number of these courts has risen from 272 in 2019-20 to 408 as of September 30, 2024.

These courts have disposed off more than 1,80,000 cases since the scheme’s inception, reflecting a concerted effort to address pendency in sensitive cases involving child victims.

According to data, Uttar Pradesh leads states with 74 functional POCSO courts, followed by Madhya Pradesh with 57.

These states have also reported the highest cumulative disposal of cases, with Uttar Pradesh clearing over 40,000 cases and Madhya Pradesh more than 24,000.

Despite these achievements, states like Chandigarh, Manipur, and Uttarakhand still lack dedicated POCSO courts.

Video conferencing facilities, crucial for the sensitive handling of child victims, are now available in more than 3,200 court complexes, with plans to enhance facilities further under Phase III of the project.

However, information regarding other critical aspects, such as the presence of vulnerable witness safeguards, remains unavailable at the central level.

In terms of prosecution, 618 out of 955 special public prosecutors (SPPs) are exclusively handling POCSO cases, with Uttar Pradesh appointing 217 such prosecutors, the highest among states.

Gujarat and Bihar also show robust implementation, with all their appointed SPPs dedicated to POCSO cases.

However, the absence of exclusive SPPs in regions like Chandigarh and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands highlights regional disparities.

Women’s representation among judges handling POCSO cases and information regarding gender-sensitive infrastructure were not provided in the central data.