Despite stringent provisions, the POCSO Act, 2012 faces an implementation deficit. Examine with reference to Special Courts and Fast Track Special Courts.

The POCSO Act, 2012 is a child-centric law. It requires a child's evidence to be recorded within 30 days of cognizance and the trial to finish within one year, "as far as possible" [2]. The 2019 amendment raised the maximum punishment to death [1]. On paper, the law is strict. In practice, the courts meant to deliver it lag behind the statute.

Deficit in Special Courts

• Timelines are directory: because the one-year limit is only "as far as possible", it cannot be enforced [2]. By October 2022, fast-track courts had over 1.93 lakh cases pending against about 1.24 lakh disposed [7].
• Weak convictions: in 2014, only 100 of 406 completed trials ended in conviction [8]. Finishing a trial is not the same as delivering justice.
• Hostile witnesses: High Courts cite poor investigation, insufficient evidence and victims or families turning hostile as causes of low conviction [9]. The pressure is greatest when the accused is powerful.

Deficit in Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs)

• Target not met: under a Centrally Sponsored Scheme run by the Department of Justice, 1,023 FTSCs were planned, including 389 exclusive POCSO courts [3][4]. Only 754 were functional by January 2025 [4].
• Exclusive POCSO courts are shrinking: their number fell from 412 [6] to 410 in May 2024 [5] and 404 in January 2025 [4].
• Uneven coverage: FTSCs work in 30 States/UTs [4], so access depends on where the child lives.
• Rising load per court: disposals rose from about 2.53 lakh [5] to over 3.06 lakh [4] while the number of courts stayed the same. Each court now carries more work, which leaves less time for child-sensitive hearings.

Way Forward

• Report conviction and hostility rates, not just disposals, for each court.
• Protect witnesses between the FIR and the recording of evidence.
• Enforce the 30-day evidence rule strictly, so there is less time to pressure the family.
• Complete the remaining FTSCs with trained, child-sensitive judges.

The deficit lies less in the law than in how courts, investigators and witness protection work together. Deterrence depends on how certain punishment is, not only on how severe it is. Fully staffed Special Courts and FTSCs, backed by stronger investigation and witness protection, would give real effect to the child's rights under Articles 15(3), 21 and 39(f).