Case at a Glance
A Government Order of 6 December 2025 allowed Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO cases to also conduct non-POCSO cases, including Juvenile Justice Act matters. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that the order cannot be sustained, because Section 32(1) of the POCSO Act and the Supreme Court’s directions require exclusive prosecutors for POCSO courts. It directed the State to appoint POCSO-only Special Public Prosecutors within six weeks, to consider setting up 13 more exclusive POCSO courts, and to fix infrastructure shortfalls in existing ones.
The District Court Bar Association at Thodupuzha–Muttom and its Secretary filed a public interest petition challenging a Government Order dated 6 December 2025. That order permitted Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO cases to also conduct non-POCSO cases, including cases under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Director General of Prosecution defended the order, relying on the definition of ‘Children’s Court’ in Section 2(20) of the JJ Act to argue that POCSO prosecutors should be allowed to handle JJ Act and other matters. The Registrar (District Judiciary) of the High Court filed an affidavit on the state of infrastructure in POCSO courts, which the Bench took on record.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the State permit Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO Special Courts to also conduct non-POCSO cases?
Why exclusivity is built into the POCSO Act
Writing for the Bench, Chief Justice Soumen Sen turned to Section 32(1) of the POCSO Act, which requires every State to appoint, by notification, a Special Public Prosecutor for every Special Court for conducting cases only under the Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 8 January 2020 in In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents, (2020) 01 SC CK 0134 (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 with W.P.(C) No. 819 of 2019), which emphasised exclusive Public Prosecutors in all courts set up for POCSO cases. In the Bench’s words, “The language of the Act leaves no manner of doubt”.
The Court stressed why this matters on the ground: “Public Prosecutors must be trained to deal with child victims and child witnesses”, and “The job assigned to the Public Prosecutor for POCSO cases is a very onerous one” that calls for care and sensitivity. Diluting that role by assigning other cases ran contrary to both the statute and the Supreme Court’s directions. The Bench then looked beyond prosecutors to the courts themselves, directing the State to consider establishing the remaining permanent, exclusive POCSO Special Courts and to support upgrades of non-compliant courts identified in the Registrar’s affidavit.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Government Order dated 6 December 2025 permitting POCSO Special Public Prosecutors to conduct non-POCSO cases cannot be sustained.
- The State must appoint Special Public Prosecutors exclusively for POCSO cases within six weeks from the date of the judgment.
- The State must consider setting up the remaining 13 permanent, exclusive POCSO Special Courts (one in each district except Ernakulam) and communicate its decision to the High Court Administration within four weeks of receiving the judgment.
- The Registrar (District Judiciary) must ensure POCSO courts comply with the POCSO and JJ Act guidelines, shortcomings noted in the affidavit must be rectified at the earliest, and the State must provide financial and other support.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It strengthens the child-friendly trial framework by insisting on dedicated, trained prosecutors for child victims and witnesses.
- It reinforces that State administrative convenience cannot override an express statutory mandate and Supreme Court directions.
- It sets concrete timelines, pushing both appointments and court infrastructure forward across Kerala.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families of Child Victims
- POCSO cases must be handled by prosecutors dedicated only to POCSO matters.
- The ruling aims to reduce delay and improve sensitivity in how child witnesses are examined.
- Infrastructure gaps in POCSO courts are now subject to High Court monitoring.
For Counsel and Bar Associations
- Section 32(1) POCSO and the Supreme Court’s 2020 directions are the anchor for challenging dilution of exclusivity.
- Watch for the State’s compliance within six weeks and its decision on new courts.
- PILs backed by concrete material (such as the Registrar’s affidavit) can secure systemic directions.
Key Takeaways
- POCSO Special Public Prosecutors must conduct only POCSO cases.
- Kerala must appoint exclusive POCSO prosecutors within six weeks.
- 13 more exclusive POCSO courts are to be considered.
- Non-compliant POCSO courts must be upgraded with State support.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Kerala Government Order allow?
It allowed Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO cases to also conduct non-POCSO cases, including JJ Act cases. The High Court held this cannot be sustained.
What is the deadline for the State?
Six weeks from the date of the judgment to appoint POCSO-only Special Public Prosecutors, and four weeks from receipt of the judgment to communicate its decision on setting up 13 additional exclusive POCSO courts.
Which law requires exclusive POCSO prosecutors?
Section 32(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with the Supreme Court’s directions in the suo motu case on the alarming rise in child rape incidents.
Conclusion
By striking down the 2025 Government Order, the Kerala High Court has made clear that exclusivity in POCSO prosecution is a statutory requirement, not an administrative preference. The judgment pairs that holding with firm timelines for appointments, new courts and infrastructure upgrades.
Practical takeaway: Practitioners in POCSO courts should expect dedicated prosecutors from the State within the six-week window, and can rely on this judgment if POCSO prosecutors are again diverted to other work.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com