Concerns have been raised about a recent Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) and checklist issued in Tamil, for the handling of cases under the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 which was circulated among All Women Police Station (AWPS) personnel last week.
Child rights activists say few sections of the circular need to have additional details, and corrections need to be made in referencing the updated POCSO Rules, as this may cause confusion among police personnel who will go on to use the SoP and checklist.
In its first section about filing complaints, the circular states that any person (including children) who had apprehensions of an offence likely to be committed or knows of such an offence that has been committed, should provide information to the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or the local police. While the circular goes on to state that any person who does not report or record a case will be punished according to Section 21 of the act, it fails to mention that this does not apply to children.
“In a section about protection for children, the circular speaks about offences that have been committed or attempted or are likely to be committed by a person living in the same or shared household with the child, or instances where the child is living in a child care institution and is without parental support, or the child is found to be without any home and parental support. In these cases, the concerned SJPU or local police should produce the child before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). While the circular references the 2020 POCSO rules for this, it mistakenly specifies Section 4(3), which is from the 2012 rules instead of section 4(4) from the 2020 rules,” a child rights activist said.
“While this SoP and checklist strives to provide guidance, it could possibly end up creating more confusion, given how complex these cases are. It has to be more elaborate and scenario-oriented to address cases that involve humans and sexual violence” she added.
The circuclar is from the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Crimes against Women and Children, and senior police officials have been asked to circulate it, as well as impart training to all AWPS, and subsequently submit a compliance report.
Highlighting victim compensation, the circular states that the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) should be approached for the same. However, the DLSA does not feature in an SoP released by the registrar general of the Madras High Court earlier this year in February about the receipt, processing, and disbursal of interim compensation for child survivors/victims under the POCSO Act 2012.
Deepika Murali, an advocate practising at the Madras High Court, said that with multiple stakeholders being involved in handling POCSO cases, such oversights as seen in this circular could complicate the process and end up causing even more confusion. “The process has to go forward seamlessly, keeping the focus on the victim. Communication like this needs to be in consonance with the latest rules of the Central Government: in this case, the 2020 POCSO rules need to be referenced instead of the 2012 rules which have very clearly been replaced,” she said.
