I understand why privacy weighs so heavily on your mind. Cases under POCSO involve the most intimate and painful details, and when the victim's age is disputed, it can feel as though the family's private records and relationships are being put on public display. You may be a parent, the young person at the centre of the case, a witness, or even the accused, worried about how exposed the proceedings will be. Let me reassure you at once. An in-camera trial in a POCSO case is not a matter of discretion but a legal requirement, and that protection continues even while the victim's age is being disputed.

The core provision is Section 37 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). It requires the Special Court to try cases in camera and in the presence of the child's parents or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence. This means the general public, curious relatives, neighbours and the media are excluded from the courtroom. Section 37 also allows the court, where it considers necessary, to examine the child at a place other than the courtroom. The law does not leave this to chance or to the judge's personal preference.

This mandatory rule is an exception to the general principle of open justice. Ordinarily, under Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 366 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), criminal courts are open courts. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), the Supreme Court held that open trial is the rule, but closed proceedings are justified where publicity would defeat justice. POCSO applies this principle as a statutory command. Parliament decided that sexual offence trials involving children must always be protected from public view.

Now to the question that is probably troubling you most. What happens when the victim's age is disputed? Many families worry that until the court decides whether the victim was a child, the special protections do not apply. That is not how the law works. Once a case is registered under POCSO and is being tried by a Special Court under Section 28, it proceeds under the POCSO procedure. The in-camera requirement under Section 37 applies from the start of the trial, including during the hearing on age.

The Special Court has specific power to resolve the age question. Under Section 34(2) of POCSO, where a question arises whether a person is a child, the Special Court decides it after satisfying itself about that person's age. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) and P. Yuvaprakash v. State (2023), the Supreme Court held that the procedure in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 applies to victims. The court first examines school or matriculation certificates, then municipal birth certificates, and only then medical age tests. This inquiry itself takes place within the closed proceedings.

This is important because the age inquiry often exposes deeply personal material. School registers, hospital birth records, family documents, medical examinations and questions about parentage may all be discussed. Conducting this in open court would reveal the very identity POCSO seeks to protect. That is why the age determination forms part of the in-camera trial, and why the documents themselves are usually handled with confidentiality and kept away from public inspection.

You may also wonder what happens if the court eventually finds that the victim was eighteen or older. In that case POCSO no longer applies, but the privacy protection does not suddenly disappear. Where the allegations involve rape or related sexual offences, Section 327(2) CrPC, now Section 366(2) BNSS, independently requires the inquiry or trial to be conducted in camera. These offences are now found in Sections 64 to 68, 70 and 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). So whichever way the age question is decided, a sexual offence trial will remain closed to the public.

Section 366(2) BNSS also provides that such trials shall, as far as practicable, be conducted by a woman judge or magistrate. The presiding judge may, however, permit particular persons to be present where necessary. This mirrors the protective approach of POCSO. The objective is the same under both laws, which is to allow the victim to testify freely without the fear of humiliation or exposure.

Privacy under POCSO extends well beyond the courtroom door. Section 33(7) requires the Special Court to ensure that the child's identity is not disclosed at any time during investigation or trial. Identity includes the name, address, photograph, family details, school and neighbourhood, or any other information that could lead to identification. Disclosure is permitted only when the Special Court, for reasons recorded in writing, finds it to be in the child's interest. This protection covers the age inquiry as much as the rest of the case.

The media is directly restricted too. Section 23 of POCSO prohibits any report or comment on a child without complete and authentic information that may lower the child's reputation or infringe privacy. It forbids the disclosure of the child's identity in any form of media, and makes publishers and owners jointly liable. Violation is punishable with imprisonment of six months to one year, or fine, or both. For sexual offence victims generally, disclosure of identity is punishable under Section 72 BNS, formerly Section 228A IPC.

Publication of what happens inside the courtroom is restricted as well. Under Section 327(3) CrPC, now Section 366(3) BNSS, it is unlawful to print or publish any matter relating to in-camera proceedings without the court's permission. The provision allows publication of judgments subject to maintaining confidentiality of the victim's name and address. Section 73 BNS separately penalises printing or publishing matters relating to proceedings in such cases without the court's permission.

The Supreme Court has laid down strict directions on this subject. In Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018), it held that no person may print or publish the name of a victim of a sexual offence or a POCSO case, or disclose any fact that could lead to identification. It directed that FIRs relating to such offences should not be put in the public domain. It also directed that the identity of a victim should not be disclosed even if the victim has died or is of unsound mind, except in narrow circumstances with proper authorisation.

Courts have also increasingly anonymised judgments and cause lists in POCSO matters. Many High Courts, and the Supreme Court itself, now mask the names of victims in reported judgments. Live-streaming rules adopted by several courts following Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) exclude sexual offence and POCSO cases from broadcast. The right to privacy recognised under Article 21 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) strongly supports this approach.

Inside the closed courtroom, POCSO provides further safeguards for the child. Under Section 33(2), all questions from the defence must be put through the Special Judge rather than directly to the child. Section 33(3) permits frequent breaks. Section 33(4) requires a child-friendly atmosphere, with a trusted family member or friend present. Section 33(5) prevents the child from being called repeatedly. Section 33(6) forbids aggressive questioning and character assassination, and requires the child's dignity to be maintained at all times.

The child must also be shielded from the accused. Under Section 36(1), the Special Court must ensure that the child is not exposed to the accused while testifying, while the accused can still hear the statement and communicate with his advocate. Section 36(2) allows the use of video conferencing, single-visibility mirrors, curtains or other devices. In Sakshi v. Union of India (2004), the Supreme Court approved the use of screens. In Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra (2022), it directed the setting up of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres nationwide.

It is important to understand what an in-camera trial does not mean. It does not exclude the accused or his lawyer. Under Section 273 CrPC, now Section 308 BNSS, evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused or his pleader, and Article 21 guarantees him a fair trial. The Special Public Prosecutor, the defence lawyer, court staff, the support person and the child's trusted companion may all be present. In-camera means the public and media are kept out, not that the trial becomes secret from the parties.

An in-camera trial also does not change the law, the burden of proof or the rules of evidence. The prosecution must still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It must prove the victim's age as a foundational fact before the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO come into play. The accused retains every right to cross-examine witnesses through the permitted method and to lead defence evidence. Privacy protects people, not outcomes.

If you are the accused, you should know that in-camera proceedings can protect you too. They prevent sensational public exposure during a trial where guilt has not yet been established. However, you cannot waive the in-camera requirement, because it exists for the child's protection. If you believe the victim was an adult, that must be raised through documents and a proper application for age determination under Section 34(2), not through public statements or media campaigns, which can themselves attract penalties.

If you are the victim or the victim's family, you have additional rights that strengthen your privacy. Section 40 of POCSO allows you to engage a legal counsel of your choice, and if you cannot afford one, the Legal Services Authority must provide a lawyer. A support person may be appointed under the POCSO Rules, 2020 to assist throughout. Under Section 33(8) of POCSO and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, the Special Court may award interim and final compensation. Your counsel can raise any privacy concern directly before the court.

Proceedings outside the trial deserve attention as well. Bail hearings, quashing petitions and appeals may be heard in courts that ordinarily sit in open session. In these, the court usually protects privacy by masking the victim's name, sealing sensitive documents and restricting publication. The victim or informant also has a right to be heard in bail applications in certain serious sexual offence cases, under the proviso to Section 483 BNSS, formerly Section 439(1A) CrPC. Your advocate can ask for sensitive material to be placed in a sealed cover.

What should you do if the in-camera rule is not being followed? Sometimes, due to courtroom crowding or oversight, members of the public remain present or identifying details are read aloud. Your advocate or the Special Public Prosecutor should immediately bring Section 37 to the judge's attention and request that the courtroom be cleared. A written application can also be filed seeking specific directions, such as masking documents, sealing age records and recording the child's evidence in a separate room.

If the Special Court fails to enforce these protections, you can approach the High Court. A petition under Section 528 BNSS, formerly Section 482 CrPC, invokes the High Court's inherent power to secure the ends of justice. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks supervisory correction of the trial court's conduct. Where identity has been disclosed or the child is at risk, a writ petition under Article 226 may be appropriate. High Courts treat POCSO privacy violations very seriously.

If anyone publishes the child's identity, whether in newspapers, television, social media or messaging groups, act quickly. A complaint can be filed under Section 23 of POCSO and Section 72 BNS. You can ask the platform to remove the content and seek directions from the Special Court or High Court for takedown. Complaints can also be made to the Press Council of India or the relevant broadcasting standards authority. Preserve screenshots and links as evidence before they are deleted.

If you are facing threats because of the case, the law protects you. In Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, which includes identity concealment and protected testimony. Section 398 BNSS requires every State to notify a witness protection scheme. Threatening a witness to give false evidence is punishable under Section 232 BNS, and criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. Intimidation can also justify cancellation of the accused's bail under Section 483(3) BNSS.

Because age disputes and privacy concerns overlap in complex ways, experienced guidance makes a real difference. You can discuss your situation confidentially with the legal professionals at Aapka Legal Advice. Experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India| Aapka Legal Advice who appear regularly before Special POCSO Courts can ensure Section 37 is strictly followed, seek sealing of age records, apply for video testimony and protective screens, and take prompt action against any disclosure of identity.

Where the case raises sensitive questions about age documents or privacy, a view from the bench can be invaluable. Aapka Legal Advice offers consultations with a panel of retired judges, including retired High Court judges, retired Principal District and Sessions Judges and former Special POCSO Court judges, who work alongside its criminal lawyers. Having conducted in-camera trials and decided age disputes themselves, they can advise how a Special Court is likely to handle confidential records. They can also assess whether a High Court petition is warranted if protections are not being honoured.

There are practical steps you can take right now. Do not discuss the case on social media or in community groups, even indirectly, because such posts can reveal identity. Keep all age-related documents safely and share them only with your lawyer and the court. Inform your advocate at once if anyone in the courtroom seems out of place, or if you receive calls from journalists or strangers. Ask the Special Public Prosecutor to confirm that the child's statement will be recorded in a protected setting.

To sum up, an in-camera trial in a POCSO case is mandatory under Section 37 of POCSO, and it continues to apply while the victim's age is being decided under Section 34(2) of POCSO and Section 94 of the JJ Act. Even if the court finds the victim to be an adult, trials of rape and related offences remain in camera under Section 366(2) BNSS. Identity protection under Section 33(7) and Section 23 of POCSO, Sections 72 and 73 BNS and the directions in Nipun Saxena continue throughout. Remedies lie before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS and Article 227 if these protections are breached.

Your family's privacy and the young person's dignity are protected by law, not left to chance. With an experienced criminal lawyer, and where needed guidance from a retired judge, you can make sure every safeguard is actually enforced from the first hearing to the final judgment. Seek legal advice early, because a well-protected in-camera trial in a POCSO case depends on vigilance at every stage, especially when the victim's age is in dispute.