SC to Decide If Women Can Face POCSO Penetrative Assault

Supreme Court to Decide if Women Can Be Tried for Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act

Case raises questions on gender neutrality in child protection laws

Judgment could redefine scope of criminal liability for women in India

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 31, 2025: In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for criminal law in India, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether women can be prosecuted for penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The case has sparked intense debate among legal experts, child rights activists, and women’s rights groups. At its core, the issue is whether the law, which was drafted with the assumption that perpetrators are male, should be interpreted in a gender-neutral manner.

Background of the Case

The POCSO Act was enacted in 2012 to provide a comprehensive legal framework for protecting children from sexual abuse.
The law defines penetrative sexual assault in Section 3, which uses gender-specific language, assuming the perpetrator is male.
A petition before the Supreme Court has challenged this interpretation, arguing that women too should be held accountable if they commit such offences.
The Court has now agreed to examine the matter, setting the stage for a landmark ruling.

Supreme Court’s Observations So Far

The bench noted that:

The language of the POCSO Act is not explicitly gender neutral.
However, the Constitution guarantees equality before the law under Article 14, which could support a broader interpretation.
The Court must balance child protection with fairness in criminal liability, ensuring that perpetrators cannot escape punishment due to gender-specific wording.

Why This Case Matters

Gender Neutrality in Law
- Most sexual offence laws in India, including POCSO, assume male perpetrators and female victims.
- This case could push for gender-neutral drafting, ensuring accountability regardless of the offender’s gender.
Child Protection
- The primary aim of POCSO is to protect children. If women are excluded from liability, gaps in protection may remain.
Equality Before Law
- The case raises the question: should women be treated differently under criminal law, or should equality demand equal liability?

Legal Context and Precedents

In Sakshi v. Union of India (2004), the Supreme Court recognized the need for broader definitions of sexual assault.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 made rape laws more gender-neutral in terms of victims but still assumed male perpetrators.
Globally, many countries, including the UK and Canada, have moved towards gender-neutral sexual offence laws.

Expert Opinions

Child Rights Activists: Support gender neutrality, arguing that abuse by women, though less common, does occur and must be punished.
Women’s Rights Groups: Some caution that expanding liability could be misused against women, especially in family disputes.
Legal Scholars: Emphasize that the Constitutional principle of equality requires laws to be applied without gender bias.

Broader Social Impact

If the Supreme Court rules that women can be tried for penetrative sexual assault under POCSO:

It would mark a historic shift in Indian criminal law.
It could lead to amendments in other laws to ensure gender neutrality.
It may also influence public perception, challenging stereotypes that only men can be perpetrators of sexual violence.

Challenges Ahead

Legislative Intent: The original drafters of POCSO may not have envisioned women as perpetrators.
Statistical Rarity: Cases of women committing penetrative assault are rare, raising questions about the need for reinterpretation.
Risk of Misuse: Critics warn that broadening liability could lead to false cases against women.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to examine whether women can be prosecuted for penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act is a watershed moment. It forces India to confront difficult questions about gender, equality, and justice.

If the Court rules in favour of gender neutrality, it could redefine criminal liability in India and ensure that all children are equally protected, regardless of the gender of the offender.

This case is not just about legal interpretation—it is about the future of child protection and gender equality in India’s justice system.