Topic
Child protection under Indian law encompasses legal frameworks like the Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, and constitutional rights to safeguard minors from abuse, exploitation, and neglect.
Supreme Court holds that 'knowledge' under Section 19 of the POCSO Act encompasses credible information from the victim, even without direct evidence. Failure to report such disclosures attracts criminal liability, as seen in the conviction of a school official while discharging others for lack of direct knowledge.
Karnataka High Court rules that while a minor’s consent is legally invalid under POCSO Act, bail may still be granted if the accused has undergone prolonged custody and cooperated with investigation. The ruling underscores that bail considerations under Section 439 CrPC must balance statutory strictures with individual liberty, even in heinous offences.
Patna High Court rules that mere administrative position (Principal-cum-Director) does not establish criminal liability under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS without direct evidence or forensic corroboration. The judgment underscores that institutional heads cannot be held vicariously liable for offences absent active involvement, setting a precedent for bail jurisprudence in cases of alleged institutional negligence.
Allahabad HC refuses to quash an FIR involving hacking of a 10-year-old’s Instagram account, holding that cyber exploitation of minors under POCSO and IT Act may also implicate national security. The court directs thorough investigation into the petitioner’s digital links and syndicate involvement, emphasizing the gravity of such offences.
Patna High Court grants bail in a POCSO case where the minor victim refused medical examination and did not support prosecution allegations in her Section 183 BNSS statement. The ruling underscores that clean antecedents and lack of corroboration can outweigh the gravity of charges, setting a precedent for bail considerations in child protection cases with unreliable victim testimony.
The Bombay High Court upheld the 2021 amendment shifting adoption authority from courts to District Magistrates under the Juvenile Justice Act, finding that CARA’s 2022 Rules provide sufficient procedural safeguards to protect child welfare and maintain constitutional balance. This ruling reinforces the executive’s role in child adoption processes while affirming that delegation of quasi-judicial functions does not inherently breach separation of powers or fundamental rights.
MP High Court reclassified a non-penetrative sexual assault on a girl under 12 from IPC 376AB to POCSO Section 9(m), reinforcing that aggravated sexual assault under POCSO does not require proof of penetration. The ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedent, ensuring stricter protection for child victims under statutory law.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that the state must proactively intervene under the Juvenile Justice Act when a minor is at risk of forced marriage, even without a formal complaint. The Court directed police to produce the minor before the Child Welfare Committee, emphasizing that state duty is triggered by the mere apprehension of harm, reinforcing child protection over procedural formalities.
Punjab & Haryana HC holds that a minor’s refusal to marry under familial pressure qualifies as a 'child in need of care and protection' under Section 2(14)(vii)(xii) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, mandating immediate intervention by the Child Welfare Committee. The ruling reinforces state obligation to protect minors from forced marriages, even in the absence of physical coercion.
Punjab & Haryana HC affirms that minors threatened with forced marriage fall under 'child in need of care and protection' under Section 2(14) of the JJ Act 2015, mandating Child Welfare Committee intervention. The ruling reinforces state duty to protect minors' liberty under Article 21, even without a criminal complaint.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that forced sexual intercourse with a minor under coercion-even if motivated by extortion-remains rape under the POCSO Act. The court emphasized that the victim's lack of consent, not the perpetrator's motive, determines the offense, reinforcing child protection over bail considerations despite prolonged custody.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that a minor escaping forced marriage falls under 'child in need of care and protection' under Section 2(14)(vii) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court directed immediate police intervention and Child Welfare Committee inquiry, overriding familial objections to protect the minor's rights.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that live-in relationships involving minors cannot claim protection under Article 21, as child protection laws like POCSO and the Juvenile Justice Act override personal autonomy. The Court directed the minor to be produced before the Child Welfare Committee, reinforcing statutory safeguards over constitutional claims in such cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court mandates 'Shourya Didi' intervention for trauma-affected girls, establishing state duty to provide sustained mentoring beyond immediate rescue.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that repeated adjournments to delay cross-examination of a child victim violate POCSO Act's time-bound trial mandate and duty to protect child dignity.