The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 29, 2026) directed all trial courts seized of sexual offence cases in Tamil Nadu to make every effort to complete the trial within two months by not granting adjournments, except for “truly exceptional reasons to be recorded in writing.”
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Registrar General of High Court to issue a circular to all district and sessions courts in the State, reiterating the statutory requirement under Section 346(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to complete the trial within two months of filing the charge sheet by the police.
The Registrar General was also ordered to reissue a 2024 circular reminding every presiding officer of a special court constituted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, to record the evidence of child victims within 30 days and conclude the trial, as far as possible, within one year as prescribed under the Act.
“The State Government and the Registrar General shall jointly ensure that every POCSO case in the State is tried by a duly constituted Special Court under Section 28 of the POCSO Act, and that presiding officers of such courts receive training in child-sensitive procedure,” the Division Bench said.
The Bench also ordered that a committee constituted by the High Court for effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act and to regulate and monitor the progress of trials in POCSO cases shall monitor the progress of trials across every district and call for periodic compliance reports disclosing the date of cognisance, the current stage of trial, and the reasons for any delay beyond the statutory timelines.
Further, the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy was directed to conduct special training sessions periodically for the presiding officers of all POCSO courts on the 30-day child-evidence-recording requirement, the obligation to take prompt cognisance of electronically filed charge sheets and the one-year trial-completion mandate under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.
The Division Bench ordered the appointment of presiding officers at the earliest to four POCSO courts at Cuddalore, Dindigul, Madurai, and Thoothukudi and insisted that the State government take an early decision on constituting six more POCSO courts, which had been sanctioned but not set up yet.
Directions to DGP
The Chief Justice’s Bench issued a slew of directions to the Director General of Police (DsGP) too on speeding up prosecution in sexual offences against women and children. The DGP was ordered to ensure that instances such as the present writ petitioner having been subjected to sexual assault by two policemen, at Tiruvannamalai in September 2025, do not recur in the State.
The DGP was further directed to ensure a special task force, constituted for keeping a tab on offences against women and children, functions in every district with the effectiveness envisaged. The police must conduct proper investigation in POCSO offences and ensure timely production of witnesses before the trial courts, the court ordered.
The orders were passed after the DGP informed the court that out of 1,920 rape cases pending trial in the State, the final reports were filed within the 60-day period contemplated under Section 193(2) of the BNSS only in 1,055 cases (54.0%). On the other hand, out of 18,518 POCSO cases pending trial, final reports were filed within 60 days in 12,983 cases (70.1%).
The court was also informed that trial had not been completed within the statutory period of two months in 1,471 rape cases (76.7%) and within the statutory period of one year in 10,202 (54.06%) POCSO cases. The evidence of child victims was not recorded within the statutory period of 30 days in 3,170 POCSO cases (16.7%).
The DGP also said, the trial courts concerned were yet to take on file the charge sheets filed by the police in 149 rape cases and 4,729 POCSO cases for various reasons such as rectification of defects and so on.
“These figures are sobering and this court does not propose to explain them away. At the same time, the DGP’s report is candid about the causes of delay, viz., pendency of forensic reports, delay in obtaining dates from Magistrates for recording statements, absence of sanctioned POCSO courts in 20 districts, vacancies of presiding officers and so on,” the judges observed.
Published – July 29, 2026 04:08 pm IST
