In a brief but packed hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court put an immediate pause on an Allahabad High Court order that had sparked sharp concern among child-rights lawyers and prosecutors. The bench, led by the Chief Justice, noted that despite repeated service of notices, the accused in the underlying POCSO case simply chose not to appear before the Court. The atmosphere inside Court No. 1 felt tense-almost everyone sensed the matter was heading toward a wider debate on how courts handle sexual-offence cases involving minors.
Background
The controversy began after the High Court passed an order in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024, which the complainant challenged immediately. As soon as the Supreme Court registered the matter suo motu, several senior lawyers, including Shobha Gupta and H.S. Phoolka, entered appearance-either as amici or representing parties connected with related petitions.
During the hearing, Mr. Phoolka pointed out something that made the bench visibly uneasy: the accused were “very much active in trial court proceedings” and had even secured regular bail on 6 November 2025. If they could appear for trial, he argued, then not turning up before the Supreme Court could not be brushed aside as ignorance or confusion. The bench seemed to agree.
Court’s Observations
The Chief Justice noted early on that State authorities had served the accused twice-first in April and then again on 6 December. “Still, they have chosen not to contest these proceedings,” the bench observed, its tone firm but calm.
The Court directed the State to give one final intimation to the accused through the local police station but made it crystal clear that the case will not be adjourned again merely because they do not appear. It was one of those moments when the courtroom murmured softly-everyone understood the signal.
At another point, the bench addressed concerns raised by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, who highlighted that several High Courts across India had passed similar observations in sensitive POCSO cases. “The bench observed, ‘It is high time we consider broader guidelines, given the serious impact such remarks may have on victims and society.’” The Court then asked all appearing counsel to file short written submissions before the next date.
What really stood out, though, was the Court’s decision regarding the High Court order. Until the matter is examined fully, the impugned order is stayed, and the trial court must proceed as if the accused have been summoned under Section 376 (rape) read with Section 511 (attempt) of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act. For lay readers, this simply means the more serious charges remain alive during trial.
The bench added a cautionary line: the trial court should not assume the Supreme Court has formed any final opinion on guilt. It was procedural protection-not a comment on the merits.
Court’s Decision
Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court listed the matter for comprehensive consideration on 10 February 2026 and requested the Attorney General or Solicitor General to assist the Court on that day, underscoring the gravity of the issues involved. With that, the stay was confirmed, and the Court ended the proceedings-setting the stage for a much larger conversation on how the justice system treats victims in sexual-offence cases.
Case Title: In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues
Case No.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1 of 2025
Case Type: Suo Motu Criminal Writ Petition (Supreme Court initiated proceedings)
Decision / Order Date: 08 December 2025
