The Supreme Court was hearing a bail application of a man accused of raping the girl
The Supreme Court today pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for not complying with its order on the examination of an underage survivor of sexual assault, asserting it does not pass orders "just for fun".
A vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, which granted the prosecution one week to examine the survivor in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case, warned it would summon the state's Home Secretary if it was not done within the stipulated time.
"Our order was a mandatory order. It was to be followed in letter and spirit. We are not passing orders just for fun," Justice Amanullah told senior advocate Garima Prasad, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government.
The top court was hearing the bail application of the man accused of raping the girl.
"We are seeing it happening day in and day out... every state counsel is taking our orders casually. If it is not done within one week, we will call your Home Secretary here. We are at fault for letting these things happen... the fault is on our part. The message has to go (out)," an annoyed Supreme Court bench said.
Ms Prasad, at the very beginning, sought an adjournment, saying the survivor's evidence could not be recorded as there was a condolence meeting at the trial court.
The bench said the state's counsel was very casual in approach. Since it was a "mandatory order", the prosecution should have filed a petition for an extension.
"Be very careful in court. Now we are going to take serious note of this. It was your duty to file a proper application for an extension of time," it told Ms Prasad and granted a week to examine the survivor.
The accused, who has been charged with the alleged rape and criminal intimidation of a 16-year-old girl, challenged the Allahabad High Court order rejecting his bail plea on November 30 last year.
According to the prosecution, an FIR dated September 19, 2023, was lodged against the accused for sexually assaulting the teen repeatedly for over six months.
Earlier, while taking note of the fact that many witnesses in the case had not been examined, the top court directed that the survivor be examined by June 30.
The accused had claimed none of the material witnesses had been examined in the case and sought bail.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)