SC to examine if POCSO Act gender neutral on woman's plea challenging criminal proceedings

New Delhi: The Supreme Court decided to examine a plea by a woman who challenged criminal proceedings for alleged sexual assault upon a teenage boy, contending that the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, was gender-specific and would not have any application in her case.

The petitioner, an accomplished artist, Archana Patil is accused of having intercourse with a 13-year-old boy in Bengaluru in May-June, 2020, when she was 48.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the Karnataka government after hearing senior advocate Sidharth Luthra on her behalf against the high court's judgment of August 18, 2025.

Luthra submitted that Sections 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 being gender-specific, have no application to the case of the petitioner.

The court, meanwhile, ordered stay on further proceedings before the trial court.

The high court dismissed her plea for quashing the proceedings, holding although certain provisions may employ gendered pronouns, the preamble and purpose of the Act, rendered such usage inclusive.

"Therefore, it is inclusive of both male and female. The ingredients of Section 4 of the Act dealing with penetrative sexual assault are equally applicable to both men and women," the HC said.

The petitioner in her plea contended that though the Act is gender neutral, that does not mean that all the offences mentioned in the Act are gender neutral.

Each offence under the Act must be understood from its wording, language and the context in which the same was drafted, it submitted.

"Had the intention of the legislature be such that all the offences under the Act are gender neutral, then there would have been no bifurcation of sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault as sexual assault by the words and language employed in Section 7 of POCSO clearly shows that the offence is gender neutral while penetrative sexual assault in Section 3 is by a male person," it said.

The plea also stated that the matter has not yet reached the stage of arguments on charge before the trial court and under such circumstances, the observation of the high court has gravely prejudiced the petitioner. It submitted that the observation of the high court that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 POCSO are clearly met in the case at hand and are liable to be expunged.

The petitioner also contended that there was a delay of 4 and half years which has been brushed aside by the high court on "flimsy" grounds.

An FIR was lodged on June 24, 2024 with HAL police station in Bengaluru. The complainant alleged that the petitioner sought help of her son to assist in operating her Instagram account in May-June, 2020. It was during such meetings, she was alleged to have forced the boy to indulge in penetrative sex with her.

In August, 2020, the victim's family moved to Dubai for better job prospects. In February, 2024, the victim told his parents about the alleged sexual assault, when they sensed some psychological imbalance in the boy. In June, 2024, the victim's family came back to the city and lodged the complaint.

On September 28, 2024, the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner.