The Madras High Court is moving towards establishing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure proper care and protection for children who experience trauma after witnessing crimes. The bench, comprising Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar, raised the matter while hearing a criminal appeal, highlighting the psychological risks that children face when exposed to violent and disturbing incidents.
During the hearing, the State government informed the court that it had begun working on drafting an SOP in response to the court’s earlier directions. The government counsel sought additional time to present the details, which the court accepted, adjourning the case to allow further updates on the progress.
The case under discussion involved a deeply disturbing crime, where a man was convicted of murdering his own sister. The horrific incident was witnessed by the victim’s eight-year-old daughter, who saw her uncle kill her mother, mutilate her body into pieces, attempt to hide the remains, and clean the blood-stained floor.
The appeal had been filed against the conviction order passed by the trial court, which had held the accused guilty. During the proceedings, the Senior Counsel representing the appellant pointed out the long-term psychological effects that such traumatic experiences could have on children. The counsel suggested that children exposed to such incidents should be provided with psychological evaluations and counselling, facilitated by professionals, and urged the court to recommend that the government establish a structured mechanism for the same.
The court acknowledged the concern raised by the Senior Counsel and emphasized that this was not an isolated situation.
"This is not an isolated case of a child being subjected to such trauma by witnessing the commission of a criminal offence. We have been handling several cases frequently, where innocent children are witnesses to several criminal cases. Even in cases where a child witnesses harsh quarrels between his / her parents, etc., it undergoes mental agony. While the POCSO Act envisages safeguards and remedial measures for child victims, there are no regulations for child victims in other criminal cases to extend psychological evaluation or counselling," the court observed.
The judges further pointed out that the issue went beyond this particular case, as many children find themselves in similar situations, which can severely affect their mental well-being. The court also highlighted that although the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act lays down certain protections for child victims, there are currently no clear provisions addressing the needs of child witnesses or victims in criminal cases that do not fall under the POCSO framework.
The bench emphasized the constitutional and moral responsibility of the State to ensure children's holistic development, underlining that the Directive Principles of State Policy require the government to create conditions for children to grow up in an environment of dignity and freedom.
"Sadly, there are no policies or programmes or regulations to assure the same and even the National Policy for Children 2013 was not being implemented," the court noted.
Given the seriousness of the issue, the court decided to exercise its inherent powers and impleaded several key officials and departments into the case. These included the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Principal Secretary of the Home Department (Tamil Nadu), the Principal Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Women Empowerment (Tamil Nadu), the Director General of Police (Tamil Nadu), and the Director and Head of the Department of Psychiatry at the Institute of Mental Health, Chennai.
When the case came up for hearing again, the State reiterated its intent to bring in an SOP to address the needs of such children. The government mentioned that children who witness crimes might fall under the category of a “child in need of care and protection” as defined under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. However, the State sought further time to finalize and present a more comprehensive plan.
The court also directed Senior Counsel Abdu Kumar Rajarathinam to assist in identifying the categories of children who would require such specialized care and support in traumatic situations.
The criminal appeal titled Saravanakumar v. The State, registered as CRL A No. 25 of 2023 along with Crl.M.P. No. 268 of 2023, continues to be under the court’s consideration. Representing the appellant was Senior Counsel Mr. Abdu Kumar Rajarathnam, along with Ms. Vijayalakshmi, while the respondents were represented by Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The court’s ongoing scrutiny of this matter is seen as a significant step toward addressing the psychological impact on children exposed to crime scenes and ensuring that appropriate systems are established to protect their mental health and future well-being.
Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Abdu Kumar Rajarathnam, senior counsel for Ms. Vijayalakshmi
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan, Additonal Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Saravanakumar v. The State
Case No: CRL A NO. 25 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.268 of 2023
