LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2018 INSC 433Decided 1 May 2018
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 76 of 2018
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Background

A public-spirited petitioner filed this writ petition after an eight-month-old girl became the victim of a sexual offence under the POCSO Act, raising two concerns: ensuring proper medical treatment and compensation for the infant victim, and the much wider problem of massive, chronic delays in trying POCSO cases nationwide (tens of thousands of cases pending for over a year in states like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh). The Court had already passed earlier orders securing the child's treatment at AIIMS and victim compensation. By the time of this judgment, the focus shifted to the systemic delay problem in POCSO trials across India.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that the POCSO Act mandates trials be completed within one year of cognizance (Section 35(2)) and is a gender-neutral child-protection law built around constitutional guarantees (Articles 15(3) and 39(f)) and India's international commitments. Finding the "as far as possible" caveat in Section 35(2) insufficient excuse for the scale of pendency shown, the Court issued binding directions: High Courts must ensure Special Courts actually try and dispose of POCSO cases with sensitized judges; Special Courts must be established where not already done; adjournments should not be granted unnecessarily so trials stay time-bound; Chief Justices of High Courts must constitute monitoring committees of judges to track POCSO trial progress; police must set up Special Task Forces to ensure proper investigation and witness production; and High Courts must ensure child-friendly court infrastructure. With these directions, the writ petition was finally disposed of.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can and will issue binding, system-wide administrative directions, not just rule on one case, when a protective law like POCSO is being undermined by chronic delay; for an ordinary citizen, this case is the basis for the judicial monitoring committees and Special Courts meant to fast-track child sexual abuse cases nationwide.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case