The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is now under the scrutiny of India’s highest court after it issued a notice in a case that challenges whether the law can be applied to a female accused.

The case involves Archana Patil, who has contested the invocation of the Act in her case. Senior advocate Hashmath Pasha, representing Ms Patil, argued that “Sections 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c) of the POCSO Act are gender specific and have no application to the case of the petitioner.” He pointed out that those provisions define penetrative sexual assault using pronouns “he” and “his”.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma formally accepted the petition for consideration, ordering: “Issue notice. In the meantime, further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.” This means that the trial against Patil is presently suspended.

The disputed provisions — Sections 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c) — describe “penetrative sexual assault” in terms of a male perpetrator:

“3. Penetrative sexual assault.—A person is said to commit ‘penetrative sexual assault’ if—
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.”

The petition also challenges a recent ruling by the Karnataka High Court (dated 18 August 2025), which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings against Patil. The High Court found that the POCSO Act is gender neutral, and that offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act can indeed be alleged against a woman. It held:

“The Act, being a progressive enactment, is intended to safeguard the sanctity of childhood. It is rooted in gender neutrality with its beneficient object being the protection of all children, irrespective of sex. The Act is thus, gender neutral. Sections 3 and 5 which form the foundation for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, delineate various forms of assault. Although certain provisions may employ gendered pronouns, the preamble and purpose of the Act, render such usage inclusive. Therefore, it is inclusive of both male and female.”

The facts of the case: Patil is accused based on a complaint by the parents of a 13-year-old boy. The boy’s parents allege that between February and June 2020, their son (who had gone to Patil’s home for art lessons) was sexually assaulted by Patil, a neighbour, then aged 48. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) and 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. A criminal case was registered at the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court-I) in Bengaluru.

In her petition before the High Court, Patil argued that the sections of the POCSO Act invoked against her were “gender-specific and could not apply to a female accused.” But the High Court disagreed, observing that the Act’s protective object covers all children and all perpetrators regardless of gender.

The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice and stay further trial court proceedings means the legal question of gender-neutrality under the POCSO Act is now before the apex court. The outcome will have important implications not only for this case but for how the law addresses offences by women against children under the POCSO framework.