Doctors Cannot Be Booked Under POCSO Act Without Grave Suspicion, Rules High Court

The High Court has ruled that charges under Section 19 of the POCSO Act cannot be applied mechanically without proper consideration by investigating officers. Condemning such actions as absolutely unjust, the court stated that these charges place doctors under mental trauma, which hampers their ability to perform their critical duties.

Under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, individuals are legally bound to report an offense once they become aware of it, while Section 21 prescribes punishments for failing to do so. ^[1] The court made this observation while hearing the case of a 68-year-old gynecologist who was charged with failing to report a minor's pregnancy and allegedly performing an abortion without consent.

The case involved allegations that the first accused repeatedly had sexual intercourse with a minor, resulting in pregnancy. The petitioner, a gynecologist, was charged under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, as well as Sections 312 (causing miscarriage) and 313 (causing miscarriage without a woman's consent) of the IPC. The doctor argued that the victim's parents brought her in an advanced stage of pregnancy, claiming she was 18 years old and married. The doctor asserted that she had no reason to suspect it was a POCSO case.

The petitioner also argued that the victim arrived in a deteriorating condition with severe bleeding and symptoms of miscarriage. As a doctor, she acted to save the girl from further deterioration and provided the necessary treatment with the consent of both the victim and her parents.

In adjudicating the matter, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala, which emphasized that mere suspicion is insufficient to prosecute doctors under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court held that there must be strong evidence suggesting that the doctor knowingly failed to report a POCSO offense. ^[2]

The High Court then examined the hospital records, which recorded the victim’s age as 18 years. Ruling in favor of the doctor, the court stated that she had no intention of concealing information about the victim’s minor status. The bench concluded that the doctor acted in good faith and dismissed the charges, reinforcing the principle that doctors are not obligated to investigate a patient's age or background unless there is clear evidence of a POCSO offense. ^[2]

References

1. Verdictum. Supreme Court Judgment in Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala. Case Citation: 2025 KER 5403. Accessed January 28, 2025. https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2025-ker-5403-1684349.pdf.

2. Government of India. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Sections 19 and 21. Accessed January 28, 2025. https://indiacode.nic.in.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Pragati Sakhuja/MSM)