When the accused is socially and economically powerful, the investigation and trial of sexual offences face distinct ethical challenges. Discuss the role of institutional safeguards.

Equality before law (Article 14) is tested hardest when the accused has wealth and influence. Chennai businessman R. Veeramani is already in custody in one POCSO case. A second case has now been filed against him on a mother's complaint about her minor daughter [1]. Such cases depend less on how strict the law is and more on whether institutions can resist power.

Distinct ethical challenges

• Compromised investigation: there may be pressure to delay the FIR, dilute the charges or go slow on arrest. Public trust in the probe itself then weakens.
• Hostile witnesses: the Centre names family members and victims turning hostile, poor investigation and too little evidence as causes of low POCSO conviction [2]. Money and influence make it easier to pay or frighten a family into withdrawing.
• Silence from power asymmetry: economic dependence and stigma delay reporting. Here, statements from three other women surfaced only later [1].
• Delay as a weapon: FTSCs had over 1.93 lakh cases pending against 1.24 lakh disposed (October 2022) [3]. Each month of delay gives more time to pressure witnesses.
• Severity paradox: the 2019 amendment added the death penalty [4]. This raises what the accused has to lose, and so the incentive to silence the family.

Role of institutional safeguards

• Specialised probe: an SIT keeps the investigation away from local influence [1].
• Time-bound child evidence: the child's evidence must be recorded within 30 days of cognizance, and the trial finished within one year "as far as possible" [4]. This shortens the window for coercion.
• Dedicated courts: 754 FTSCs, including 404 exclusive POCSO courts, had disposed of over 3.06 lakh cases by January 2025 [5]. The target is 1,023 courts [2].
• Limits: the 96.28% disposal rate [6] counts acquittals too. In 2014, only 100 of 406 completed POCSO trials ended in conviction [7]. Speed does not guarantee justice.

Way forward: protect the victim's family from the FIR until the child testifies. The Department of Justice should publish conviction and hostile-witness data for each court [2]. States should set up the courts still pending and staff them with judges trained for child-sensitive trials.

Institutional safeguards turn Article 14 from a promise into practice. They work best when paired with certainty of conviction, not just severity of punishment. Strong, independent institutions can protect children from powerful offenders and advance SDG 16.2: ending abuse and violence against children.