POCSO fast track courts to come up at Faridabad, Panchkula, Gurugram

In a significant direction aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Haryana to speed up the process for establishing Fast Track Special Courts by expeditiously issuing the necessary notification within two months.

The direction came as the Bench was told about the recommendation to establish four such courts at Faridabad, Panchkula and Gurugram.

“To expedite the process of establishment of Fast Track Special Courts under the POCSO Act, the state of Haryana is directed to expedite the process, especially for issuing relevant necessary notification in this regard within two months,” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel asserted.

The order came during the hearing of a petition filed for the establishment of additional courts for dealing with offences under the POCSO Act and for compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines laid down in the case “Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents – Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1 of 2019”.

The Bench, during the course of the proceedings, was informed that the high court had on the administrative side recommended the establishment of two Fast Track Special Courts under the POCSO Act at Faridabad, and one each at Panchkula and Gurugram. A communication had already been sent to Haryana.

Appearing before the Bench, Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain referred to the Central Government’s reply before bringing to the court’s notice that budgetary allocation of Rs 200 crore had been made by the Union Government. The allocation, he said, was for the functioning of Fast Track and POCSO courts across the states. The reply further clarified that the actual establishment and designation of such courts under the POCSO Act fell squarely within the domain of the state government.

Taking note of the assertions and the reply, the Bench disposed of the petition by observing that the grievances raised by Anshul and other petitioners had been for the time being, “answered satisfactorily”.

Haryana Tribune