Last month, I attended a case-management meeting where Renuka, a trained social worker appointed as a Support Person under the POCSO Act, was visibly distressed. She had been assigned by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the POCSO Rules, 2020 to support a child who was a victim of sexual violence. Unfortunately, the case ended with the accused being acquitted, and the CWC indicated that the outcome was partly due to what they perceived as her “ineffectiveness” as a Support Person.
In the meeting, Renuka shared the journey of her intervention since the case was referred to her. She was appointed on 23rd August 2024 for a 14-year-old girl, Malti, who had been sexually assaulted by two accused—a 28-year-old man and a 17-year-old minor boy.
Listening to her, I was struck by her commitment: her persistent follow-ups, efforts to strengthen the child’s coping abilities, orient the child to the legal process, and her consistent respect for confidentiality and the child’s dignity. Her interventions were trauma-informed and child-centric. Renuka’s role reflected professionalism, empathy, and adherence to the spirit of the law.
It is crucial for all child protection professionals, policymakers, and decision-makers to recognise that a Support Person is not a magician—and should not be burdened with the expectation of ensuring a conviction. As defined under Rule 4(8) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, the Support Person’s role is to walk alongside and assist the child through the process of investigation and trial. The guidelines issued under Section 39 of the POCSO Act clearly outline this framework. Nowhere do the Rules state that the Support Person is responsible for securing a conviction.
How Does the POCSO Act Define a Support Person?
Rule 4(8), POCSO Rules, 2020:
On receiving a report under Section 19(6) of the Act, or based on its assessment—and with the consent of the child and parent/guardian or trusted adult—the CWC may provide a Support Person to assist the child in all possible ways throughout the process of investigation and trial.
Rule 2(1)(f):
Support Person means a person assigned by the CWC in accordance with sub-rule (8) of Rule 4, to render assistance to the child through the process of investigation and trial.
What a Support Person Can and Must Do — Versus What They Cannot
Duties and Responsibilities under the Rules
- Maintain confidentiality of all information related to the child — Rule 4(9) (Tripura High Court).
- Accompany the child during key stages such as statement recording, medical examination, deposition, and court appearances (Enfold, The Leaflet).
- Provide information to the child and family on procedural steps, victim compensation, investigation status, court schedules, and the accused’s custody status – Rule 4(9) (Press Information Bureau, Enfold).
- Monitor and report on the child’s well-being—physical, emotional, and mental health, and rehabilitation—via monthly reports to the CWC until the trial concludes – Rule 4(12).
- Facilitate coordination between agencies such as police, prosecutors, and medical authorities to ensure the child’s needs are met in a timely and sensitive manner.
What the Law Does Not Require or Authorize a Support Person to Do
- Ensure conviction of the accused.
- Direct or control investigation, prosecution strategy, or courtroom proceedings.
- Eliminate systemic delays or procedural lapses.
- Act as a lawyer or forensic expert, or substitute professional roles outside their scope.
- Investigate the case or supplement law enforcement functions.
Why the Outcome of a POCSO Case Cannot Rest Solely on the Support Person
POCSO cases depend on multiple complex factors—quality of forensic and medical evidence, witness credibility, procedural delays, technicalities of proof, or even witnesses turning hostile. Many of these lie beyond the Support Person’s control.
In India’s overburdened criminal justice system, conviction rates in POCSO cases often reflect systemic weaknesses rather than individual failures. Limited access to trauma-informed investigation, inadequate prosecutorial capacity, and the absence of specialized victim support units continue to impede justice delivery.
The Support Person’s contribution should therefore be measured by the quality of psychosocial support provided—not by the legal verdict.
Why Undervaluing the Support Person’s Role is Harmful
Too often, child protection stakeholders expect outcomes that extend beyond the Support Person’s mandate. This misplaced accountability can lead to:
- Burnout, guilt, and demoralisation among social workers performing demanding roles—often without remuneration.
- Discouragement of trained individuals and organisations from taking up the role.
- Unrealistic expectations, measuring success by conviction rather than by the child’s healing and access to justice.
- Blame-shifting that obscures systemic issues in investigation, prosecution, and judicial processes.
This distortion undermines the ethos of child-centric justice. Children are not merely evidence. When conviction becomes the sole measure of success, their healing, empowerment, and safety are sidelined—defeating the rehabilitative spirit of the POCSO framework.
Strengthening the Ecosystem, Not Scapegoating Individuals
Support Persons themselves need support, supervision, and structured guidance. For those appointed by CWCs, Committees must allocate time for regular case management, review monthly reports, and—along with the child’s participation—prepare and revise a comprehensive care plan.
Institutionalizing structured supervision mechanisms such as:
- Quarterly review meetings,
- Access to mental health support, and
- Peer-learning platforms
can significantly improve retention and effectiveness.
Further, convergence between CWCs, DCPUs, and NGOs must be formalized to ensure continuity of care and clarity of roles.
Renuka had done precisely what the law expects of a Support Person—she walked beside the child through trauma, offered emotional support, liaised with agencies, provided information, upheld confidentiality, and prioritised the child’s dignity. Neither Rule 4(8) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, nor Section 39 of the Act makes her responsible for the verdict. That responsibility rests with the police, prosecutors, and judiciary.
If we seek better outcomes in POCSO cases, our focus must shift toward strengthening systemic responses—timely investigations, reliable forensic and medical support, well-trained police and prosecutors, child-friendly courts, and, most importantly, reduction of trial delays.
Equally, we must value, train, and resource Support Persons—clarifying their roles, providing continuous training, and building structures that sustain them. Their work represents the human face of justice—the bridge between a child’s lived trauma and the state’s procedural machinery.
Protecting that bridge is not an act of charity, but a legal and moral imperative. Blaming Support Persons when the larger system falters is both unjust and counterproductive.
Further Reading:
