The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that calls for strict compliance with Section 43 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court granted the Central Government two weeks to submit a response, emphasizing that failure to do so would result in a cost of Rs. 10,000.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain noted:
"Further two weeks' time is granted to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to file return to the present petition failing which same shall be accepted with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to be deposited in favour of M.P. High Court, Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur."
Read also: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Phased Disposal of Union Carbide Toxic Waste at Pithampur
The PIL aims to ensure that Section 43 of the POCSO Act is implemented effectively. This section mandates that both the Central and State Governments must take all necessary steps to publicize the provisions of the Act through media platforms, including television, radio, and print media. The goal is to educate the general public, children, parents, and guardians about the Act’s provisions.
The petition highlights that despite the Act being in place for years, there have been no significant initiatives from the Central or State Governments to promote awareness. As a result, many young individuals remain unaware of the strict legal consequences outlined in the Act, leading them to unknowingly violate its provisions. The petitioner argues that raising awareness is crucial to preventing unintentional offenses and ensuring justice.
Read also: Madhya Pradesh HC Calls for Secure Attendance System to Protect Female Teachers' Privacy
In a previous order dated January 9, the High Court had issued notices to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The court directed these bodies to ensure strict and monitored compliance with Section 43 of the POCSO Act. The respondents were given two additional weeks to file their response.
During the latest hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that a rejoinder had been filed but was not on record. The court directed the registry to ensure it is placed on record.
Additionally, the respondents’ counsel submitted that a return had been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7, but not specifically for respondent No. 6. The court then ordered that notice be served to respondents Nos. 3 and 6, requiring them to file their response within two weeks. A rejoinder, if necessary, must be submitted within one week thereafter.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for six weeks later, along with another related case, W.P. No. 39997/2024.
The matter is listed after six weeks.
Case Title: Amitabha Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors, W.P. No. 24633/2024
