Supreme Court issues directions for framing guidelines on the appointment of ‘support persons’ under the POCSO Act

Today, the Supreme Court of India issued directions for framing guidelines on the appointment of support persons under the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act. The same was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice S Ravindra Bhat while hearing the case Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India & Ors. In this case, the addressed issues were related to the protection provided to victims under POCSO. The judgment delivered by the bench was mainly focused on the qualifications and appointment of support persons as they play a vital role in aiding victims. As per POCSO Rules, 2020, ‘support person’ is defined as “Someone assigned by a child welfare committee to render assistance to a child during the process of investigation and trial or any other person assisting a child pre-trial or during the process of a trial pertaining to the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012.” The directions issued by the bench are listed as follows:

• “Assess capabilities in the state with respect to the support persons ecosystem for the selection, appointment, need for special rules/guidelines/Standard Operating Procedure in regard to their appointment/empanelment, training, career advancement and terms and conditions of employment;”
• “To achieve the purpose in (i) above, require the presence of the Chairperson, of the State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR), Secretary, State Legal Service Authority, senior-most President of a JJB and senior-most Chairperson of a CWC in the state, and a representative from the State Commission for Women;” 
• “Prior to this meeting, details may be called from each District Child Protection Unit (DCPU), as to the list of support persons maintained by it as per Rule 5(1) – which is to include the names of persons or organisations working in the field of child rights or child protection, officials of children’s homes or shelter homes having custody of children, and other eligible persons employed by the DCPU [as prescribed under Rule 5(6)];” 
• “After due consultations, frame such rules, or guidelines, as are necessary, relating to the educational qualifications and/or training required of a support person [over and above the stipulation in Rule 5(6)], and parameters to identify the eligible institutions or NGOs in the state, which can be accredited to depute qualified support persons, and consequently be added to the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) directory as contemplated in Rule 5(1);”
• “Ensure that the DCPU or CWC, as the State authorities may deem fit, is tasked with conducting periodic training for all support persons in the DCPU directory to impart knowledge not only on the Act, Rules, and the legal and court procedures involved in prosecuting a POCSO case, but also more fundamentally on communicating and assisting the children of various ages and backgrounds, with the sensitivity it the role demands;”
• “In the guidelines framed, ensure that a reporting mechanism through appropriate formats are prepared, to enable the support persons to send monthly reports as per Rule 4(12) to the concerned CWC, which should then be compiled and sent to the SCPCR, and the state government;” 
• “Prepare a framework, in the form of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure proper implementation of Rule 12 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, for reporting by the respective CWCs on the specific heads of information collected by them, on monthly basis. This shall include the number of cases, where support persons have been engaged in trials and inquiries throughout the state. The information should also reflect whether they were from the DCPU directory, or with external help from an NGO. Such list shall be reviewed on monthly basis by the SCPCR;” 
• “The SOP prepared, and guidelines framed, are to be communicated to all JJBs and CWCs within a week of its preparation;” 
• “Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that support persons who are independent trained professionals, would need to take up tasks which require intensive interactions in often, hostile environments, and consequently deserve to be paid adequate remuneration. Therefore, though the Rules state that such personnel should be paid equivalent to a skilled worker as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, this court is of the opinion that the remuneration paid for the duration of the work, should be commensurate to the qualifications and experience of these independent professionals, having regard to the salaries paid to those with comparable qualifications employed by the government, in PSUs, or other institutions run by the government (e.g. hospitals), and this too may be considered in the meeting to be convened by the Principal Secretary.”

The bench further concluded the order stating that “The Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, is requested to bring this judgment to the notice of the NCPCR, which in turn is directed to file – in furtherance of its obligation under Rule 12(1)(c) – a consolidated status report outlining the progress of all States in framing of guidelines as prescribed under 14 Section 39 of the POCSO Act, by 04.10.2023. The Union of India and the NCPCR shall also file an affidavit in this regard before 4.10.2023. A copy of this order shall be marked directly by the Registry to the Union Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development and Chairperson NCPCR, for necessary action.” The matter was further listed on October 6, 2023.