Recently, the Supreme Court expressed strong concern over glaring gaps in child-protection mechanisms under the POCSO framework, especially the inadequate deployment of Para Legal Volunteers (PLVs) at police stations and the acute shortage of support persons required to assist child victims throughout investigation and trial.
The issue came before the Court in a petition filed by Bachpan Bachao Andolan, which highlighted that many States and Union Territories had failed to operationalise the PLV scheme despite its crucial role in supporting child victims at the earliest stage of police interaction. Referring to NALSA’s status report dated November 29, 2025, the Court recorded that the deployment of PLVs was severely lacking: Andhra Pradesh had PLVs in only 42 of its 919 police stations, Manipur in 1 of 90, Odisha in 30 of 612, and Delhi in 50 of 204, while Tamil Nadu had none across 1,577 police stations. Some States, such as Bihar and Haryana had not even notified the scheme. In contrast, Ladakh, Chandigarh, Sikkim, Meghalaya and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu had achieved complete deployment.
The Court also took note of the wide gap between the number of support persons required under Section 39 of the POCSO Act and those actually appointed. With 2,02,175 pending POCSO cases, the country required 10,095 support persons, yet only 3,224 had been appointed. Uttar Pradesh, which had the highest pendency at 84,778 cases, needed 4,238 support persons but had appointed 484. Several States had not provided any data on appointments.
The Petitioner argued that many States had taken an indifferent approach to appointing PLVs and allocating funds necessary for their functioning, despite the PLV’s critical role in assisting child victims from the first point of contact at the police station. Similar concern was raised about the shortfall of support persons, with the Petitioner submitting that such a shortage deeply undermines the protection, guidance, and psychological support that the POCSO Act intends to guarantee to child victims throughout the justice process.
The Court noted that several States had either failed to notify the PLV scheme or had not implemented it effectively due to the non-allocation of funds. It recorded that the status chart placed on record revealed significant deployment gaps across the country. The bench emphasised that PLVs serve as an essential interface for child victims during initial police interactions, and their absence defeats the protective purpose of the scheme.
Regarding support persons, the Court observed a clear deficiency in empanelment, reiterating that Section 39 of the POCSO Act mandates their presence to guide child victims from the investigation stage through trial and rehabilitation. It further remarked that Legal Services Authorities both State and District must play an active role by coordinating with Special POCSO Courts and State Women and Child Departments to ensure the availability of trained support persons.
The Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to verify the data placed on record regarding PLV deployment and to immediately take corrective steps wherever volunteers had not been empanelled or funds had not been allocated. It made clear that if PLVs remained unappointed or the scheme was not funded adequately, the Chief Secretaries of the respective States and Union Territories would be required to appear before the Court through video conferencing on the next date of hearing.
The Court further ordered every State and Union Territory to reassess the number of pending POCSO cases, determine the actual requirement of support persons, and file updated affidavits detailing the progress made in appointments. It held that Legal Services Authorities must actively empanel support persons in each district and work closely with Special POCSO Courts so that no child is left without assistance during investigation or trial. The Member Secretaries of District Legal Services Authorities were instructed to consult the Presiding Officers of Special Courts to ensure immediate assignment of support persons wherever missing.
Finally, the Court directed NALSA to circulate the order to all State Legal Services Authorities for effective implementation and listed the matter for further monitoring on February 10, 2026
Case Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan V. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.:Writ Petition (Civil) No. 427/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Ms Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Counsel For The Appellant: Sr. Adv. H.S. Phoolka, AOR Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv. Bhuwan Ribhu, Adv. Rachna Tyagi, Adv. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. Shashi, Adv. Surabhi Katyal, Adv. Taruna Panwar, Adv. Surpreet Kaur.
Counsel For The Respondent: A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Rohit K. Singh, Adv. Pritam Bishwas, Adv. Yashveer Singh, Adv. Shivansh Pundir, Adv. Kartikey Bansal, AOR Rashmi Nandakumar...................
Read Judgement @Latestlaws.Com
Picture Source :
