CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has reiterated that the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) cannot be diluted and that courts are bound by the statute enacted by Parliament.
A Division Bench comprising Justices P Velmurugan and M Jothiraman made the observation on Tuesday while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by an Electricity Board official from Cuddalore district seeking to trace his 17-year-old daughter, a first-year college student, who was allegedly abducted by a man from their village.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the police, submitted that the girl and the boy were in a relationship and that she had accompanied him of her own volition. He further contended that a special bench had issued general directions against taking tougher actions in instances of consensual relationships.
The Division Bench, however, questioned whether the police could drop a complaint merely because a minor girl had gone with a man willingly.
It also asked whether the provisions of the Pocso Act, which clearly define a minor and mandate stringent action for offences against children, could be ignored on such grounds.
“The court is not above the statute. The court cannot run a parallel Parliament,” the judges observed, underscoring that judicial directions cannot override statutory provisions.
Referring to the case at hand, the Bench said the police ought to have taken appropriate action, given that the girl is a minor. It directed the concerned officers to trace and produce her before the court within 48 hours and adjourned the matter.
The petitioner, represented by advocate R Thirumoorthy, submitted that his daughter had gone missing on January 29, 2026, after leaving for college and alleged that despite an FIR being registered, no effective steps were taken to secure her.
HC seeks I-T reply on PIL over MP’s income
The Madras High Court has sought a response from the Income Tax Department on a PIL alleging suppression of income by Ramanathapuram MP Navas Kani of the Indian Union Muslim League. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the department to file its reply within a week and posted the matter to February 24.
Petitioner K Venkatachalapathy alleged that the MP’s 2019 and 2024 poll affidavits show a disproportionate rise in assets compared to declared income. He claimed the MP’s family acquired assets worth `20.84 crore between 2019 and 2023. Seeking a probe by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), the petitioner said no action was taken on his December 10, 2025 representation.