Law Guide · Safeguarding

Child Protection Laws for the Social Sector

A plain-English guide to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Both apply to any organisation that works with children. The POCSO duty to report binds every person who learns of an offence, whether or not they are on the staff.

POCSO 2012 JJ Act 2015 Education · Child care · Field programmes

Not legal advice. This is an educational explainer. Child protection incidents demand immediate, correct action. Build your response protocol with a lawyer and your district's child-protection machinery before you need it, and when in doubt, report.

Under 18

everyone below 18 is a "child" under both Acts; consent is no defence under POCSO

Mandatory

reporting of suspected child sexual offences; failure to report is itself an offence (section 21)

1098

Childline, the national child helpline (integrated with the 112 emergency number), which connects you to the district child-protection system

All CCIs

every child care institution, NGO-run included, must register under the JJ Act

Section 01

Why safeguarding is a legal duty

Most development organisations meet children somewhere: in schools, anganwadi support, shelters, sports programmes, digital literacy camps, or simply in the communities where they work. Two statutes make child safety a binding legal obligation: the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The single most important thing to internalise: POCSO's reporting duty is universal and personal. Any person (a teacher, field worker, driver, accountant or volunteer, for example) who knows that an offence under the Act has been committed, or fears that one is likely to be committed, must tell the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police (section 19(1)). The organisation cannot handle the matter internally, and an individual cannot pass the duty to HR. Failing to report is punishable with imprisonment of up to six months, a fine, or both (section 21(1)). A person in charge of a company or institution who fails to report an offence in respect of a subordinate under their control faces imprisonment of up to one year and a fine (section 21(2)). Section 21(1) does not apply to a child (section 21(3)).

Section 02

The two Acts in six points

POCSO criminalises all sexual contact with children. The Act covers penetrative and non-penetrative sexual assault, sexual harassment (which includes following or repeatedly contacting a child, and showing a child pornography), and using a child for pornography. The "aggravated" forms carry higher penalties, for example when the offender is in a position of trust or authority, a group that includes the management and staff of an institution that cares for children (sections 5 and 9). Children of every gender are covered.
Consent is irrelevant below 18. The Act has no exception for partners close in age. Sexual activity with anyone under 18 is an offence whatever the child says about consent. This is the source of the adolescent-relationships dilemma discussed below.
Reporting and process are child-friendly by design. Reports go to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police (section 19), and Childline 1098 can be called alongside. The child's statement is recorded at the child's residence, at the place where the child usually resides or at a place of the child's choice, as far as practicable by a woman police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, who must not be in uniform (section 24(1) and (2)). The police must keep the child from contact with the accused and may not detain the child at a police station at night (section 24(3) and (4)). Section 23 bars the media from disclosing a child's identity, and section 74 of the JJ Act does the same for children covered by that Act. The Special Court tries cases in camera, in the presence of the child's parents or another person the child trusts (section 37).
The JJ Act runs the care-and-protection machinery. Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) decide the care plan for "children in need of care and protection". Juvenile Justice Boards handle children in conflict with law. District Child Protection Units coordinate services, and Childline 1098 is the intake channel. Since the 2021 amendment took effect on 1 September 2022, the District Child Protection Unit works under the supervision of the District Magistrate, each CWC reports to the District Magistrate, who reviews its functioning every quarter, and the District Magistrate hears grievances against a CWC. NGOs that work with vulnerable children work inside this system.
Child care institutions must register. Every institution that houses children in need of care and protection or children in conflict with law, wholly or partly, must register under section 41 of the JJ Act. This covers shelters, hostels and orphanages, whether run by a State Government or by an NGO, and with or without government grants. A registered institution must meet the prescribed care standards and accept inspection. Failing to register is an offence under section 42, punishable with imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of not less than one lakh rupees, or both. Every 30 days of delay in applying for registration counts as a separate offence.
Adoption of a child in care goes through CARA. For orphaned, abandoned and surrendered children, the JJ Act and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 route adoption through the Central Adoption Resource Authority and specialised adoption agencies. Since 1 September 2022 the District Magistrate, and not a civil court, issues the adoption order. Adoptions under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 fall outside the JJ Act, but an NGO cannot use that route to place a child in its care. Offering, giving or receiving an orphaned, abandoned or surrendered child for adoption without following the Act's procedures is an offence under section 80, punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of one lakh rupees, or both, however well meant.

Section 03

The machinery you'll interact with

Child Welfare Committee (CWC) · district decision-maker

The authority for children in need of care and protection: placement, restoration, institutional care. A child in need of care and protection must be produced before the CWC without loss of time and within 24 hours, not counting the time needed for the journey (section 31). Any individual, or functionary of an organisation, who finds and takes charge of a child who appears or claims to be abandoned or lost, or to be an orphan without family support, must within 24 hours (again excluding the journey) inform Childline, the nearest police station, a CWC or the District Child Protection Unit, or hand the child to a registered child care institution (section 32(1)). Failing to do so is an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of ten thousand rupees, or both (sections 33 and 34).

Special Juvenile Police Unit / local police · first report

The place the law sends POCSO reports. They must record the report in writing (section 19(2)). Where they are satisfied that the child needs care and protection, they must record their reasons and arrange that care within 24 hours of the report (section 19(5)). Within 24 hours they must also report the matter to the CWC and the Special Court (section 19(6)). In its judgment of 23 May 2025 in In re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, the Supreme Court said that the police must strictly implement section 19(6).

Childline 1098 · the practical front door

The 24×7 helpline for children in distress. For field teams unsure of the right authority, 1098 is a sound first call, made alongside the police report. Write down when you called and what was said. Under the Mission Vatsalya scheme the line is integrated with the 112 emergency number.

District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) · coordination

Coordinates child-protection services in the district, including foster care, sponsorship, and CCI oversight. A standing relationship with your DCPU is worth more than any written protocol when an incident is live.

Section 04

Organisational safeguarding checklist

What the two Acts, read together with care standards, translate to for an organisation that works with children.

0 of 9 steps done

Adopt a board-approved child protection policy covering conduct rules, the reporting duty and consequences, signed by every staff member, volunteer and vendor with child contact. Screen everyone with child contact before engagement, through reference checks and police verification where feasible, and do not engage anyone with a relevant history. Train every staff member on POCSO's mandatory reporting rule, including those who do not work with children directly, and repeat the training each year. Publish a one-page incident protocol: whom to call (police/SJPU, 1098), who informs the family, who documents, who supports the child. Give each role a named person and a phone number. Enforce two-adult and visibility norms for all interactions with children; prohibit staff being alone with a child out of sight. Control images and data: get written informed consent from a parent or guardian for photographs, publish no identifying information about any child in a protection context (JJ Act section 74, POCSO section 23), and prepare for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, under which a Data Fiduciary must obtain verifiable parental consent before processing a child's personal data (section 9 of the Act and rule 10 of the 2025 Rules, both in force from 13 May 2027). If you run any residential facility for children, verify its section 41 JJ Act registration and compliance with care standards, including partner-run facilities that you fund. Never arrange or assist adoption, foster placement or child transfer outside the CWC and CARA system. Route every such case through the CWC. Map your district machinery in advance: CWC members, DCPU officer, SJPU contact, nearest one-stop centre, and refresh the list each year.

Saved locally in your browser only: nothing is uploaded.

Section 05

Grey areas that practitioners argue about

Adolescent consensual relationships

Because POCSO has no close-in-age exception, consensual relationships between adolescents, or between a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old, are offences that staff are legally bound to report. Health workers fear this damages adolescents' access to sexual and reproductive health services. In its judgment of 23 May 2025 in In re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, the Supreme Court restored the conviction in the case before it and used its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct that the accused would not undergo the sentence. The Law Commission of India, in Report No. 283 of 27 September 2023, advised against changing the age of consent from 18 and proposed guided judicial discretion in sentencing where a child aged 16 to 18 gave tacit approval in fact though not consent in law. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh (9 January 2026, 2026 INSC 47), the Supreme Court directed that a copy of its judgment go to the Union Law Secretary to consider steps including a Romeo-Juliet clause exempting consensual adolescent relationships. The Act itself still has no such exception, so the reporting duty stands. Organisations should take specific legal advice on their sexual and reproductive health programme design instead of simply not reporting and saying nothing.

Photographs, fundraising, and "positive" stories

Donor communications love children's faces. But identification prohibitions are strict for children in protection contexts, and even outside them, consent taken from a parent for "programme documentation" rarely covers global fundraising use. The emerging good practice is to show no identifiable face without specific consent that the parent can withdraw, and none at all in protection cases. This is stricter than what much of the sector still does.

What exactly triggers the reporting duty?

The duty attaches on knowledge or apprehension, and proof is not required. A child's disclosure, a credible pattern or a colleague's alarming conduct can each be enough. A person who gives information in good faith under section 19(1) incurs no civil or criminal liability (section 19(7)). A false complaint or false information about an offence under sections 3, 5, 7 or 9, given solely to humiliate, extort, threaten or defame someone, is punishable with imprisonment of up to six months, a fine, or both (section 22(1)), and a child is never punished for it (section 22(2)). The rule that holds up under audit is to report when in doubt and record why.

Children of participants, not participants themselves

A livelihoods or SHG programme "doesn't work with children", until a member's child discloses abuse to your field worker. The POCSO duty applies to your staff anyway. Safeguarding should cover everyone your staff meet, whatever the programme was designed to do.

Section 06

Frequently asked questions

A child disclosed abuse at home to our field worker. The family begs us not to report. What now?

Report. The duty under POCSO section 19 cannot be waived by the family, the child or your management. Handle the situation with care. Tell the child in age-appropriate terms what will happen, and involve Childline and the CWC in the child's safety plan. Whether to report is not yours to weigh.

Do volunteers and part-time trainers fall under our safeguarding obligations?

Yes. The reporting duty binds every person individually. Screening and conduct rules should cover them as well, because an organisation that gave an unscreened volunteer access to children will fare badly before a Special Court examining aggravated-offence charges, and with its funders.

We fund a partner's children's hostel but don't run it. Is their registration our problem?

Legally the registration duty is the operator's. Funding an unregistered institution is hard to defend in due diligence. Make proof of section 41 registration and recent inspection reports a condition of funding.

What's the difference between a "child in need of care and protection" and a "child in conflict with law"?

The first (CNCP, defined in section 2(14)) is a child who is unsafe, abandoned, exploited or without anyone to care for them, and the CWC handles such a child. The second (section 2(13)) is a child alleged or found to have committed an offence, and the Juvenile Justice Board handles that child. The two tracks have different bodies, and both sit inside the JJ Act.

Does POCSO apply to online interactions in our digital programmes?

Yes. The harassment, pornography and exploitation offences apply online, and section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 adds offences on child sexual abuse material. EdTech and digital-literacy programmes need the same conduct rules, moderation and reporting protocol as physical ones. They will also need verifiable parental consent for children's data under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 from 13 May 2027.

Suggested citation

ImpactMojo (2026). "Child Protection Laws for the Social Sector." ImpactMojo Law Guides. Retrieved from https://impactmojo.in/law-guides/child-protection-social-sector.html

Spotted an error or a change in the law?

If a judgment or amendment has changed something on this page, tell us and we'll fix it.

Report a correction →

Judgments that shaped this law

The judgments below are the ones that changed what this law requires in practice. Summaries are editorial orientation, not legal advice; the linked judgment is what is authoritative.

Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish

Supreme Court of India · 23 September, 2024 · still good law

Held. The Court set aside the Madras High Court order that had quashed proceedings against a man accused of storing child pornography, and restored the case before the Sessions Court. It held that section 15 of the POCSO Act punishes three distinct kinds of storage or possession, in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), and that viewing such material over the internet without physically storing it can amount to possession under section 15 where the person exercised an invariable degree of control over it. It suggested that Parliament substitute the term 'child sexual exploitation and abuse material' (CSEAM) for 'child pornography' in POCSO, and put courts on notice that the term 'child pornography' shall not be used in any judicial order or judgment.

What changed. Programme documents and training material can use the term CSEAM, which the Court directed courts to use in place of 'child pornography'. The Court read section 67B of the IT Act as punishing the creation, possession, propagation and consumption of such material online, as well as its electronic dissemination.

Read the judgment

Attorney General for India v. Satish

Supreme Court of India · 18 November, 2021 · still good law

Held. The Court quashed the two judgments of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) that required skin-to-skin contact for sexual assault under section 7 of the POCSO Act, and restored the Special Court judgments. It held that the prosecution was not required to prove skin-to-skin contact to prove the charge of sexual assault under section 7.

What changed. Child protection training and casework can state that sexual assault under section 7 of the POCSO Act does not depend on skin-to-skin contact. Material that teaches the High Court's reading is out of date.

Read the judgment

Sampurna Behura v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 9 February, 2018 · still good law

Held. On 9 February 2018 the Supreme Court gave sixteen directions on implementing the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and disposed of the petition. They include that State Governments must fill Juvenile Justice Board and Child Welfare Committee positions expeditiously, that those bodies must sit regularly, that NCPCR and the State commissions must study how many Probation Officers are needed so that States can appoint them, and that Special Juvenile Police Units must be set up at the earliest as meaningful working units. The Court asked the Chief Justice of each High Court to register a case on its own motion on implementation, and directed the Registry to list the matter on 13 March 2018 for directions after the High Courts' responses.

What changed. A State that leaves Child Welfare Committee or Juvenile Justice Board positions vacant is acting against a direction that the State Governments 'must' fill them expeditiously. Other directions are phrased as advice, such as registering Child Care Institutions and appointing civil society Visitors ('would be well advised'), and carry less force than the 'must' directions. The judgment can be cited when pressing a State to staff these bodies.

Read the judgment

Nipun Saxena v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 11 December, 2018 · still good law

Held. The Court held that no person can print or publish, in print, electronic or social media, the name of a victim of a sexual offence or disclose facts that could lead to her being identified. It directed that FIRs for offences under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB and 376E of the IPC and under POCSO are not to be put in the public domain, and that police keep documents naming the victim in a sealed cover where possible and replace them with versions that omit the name. Where the victim is dead or of unsound mind, disclosure of identity is decided by the competent authority (at the time, the Sessions Judge), and for a minor victim under POCSO only the Special Court can permit it, if that is in the interest of the child. The Court requested States and Union Territories to set up at least one one-stop centre in every district within one year.

What changed. Anyone who documents or publishes casework has to keep a survivor of a sexual offence unidentifiable in any medium, including a case study, photograph, grant report or social media post. Section 228A of the IPC, which the judgment applies, has been replaced by section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, in force from 1 July 2024; section 72 covers offences under sections 64 to 71 of the Sanhita.

Read the judgment

Independent Thought v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 11 October, 2017 · still good law

Held. On 11 October 2017 the Supreme Court read down Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC so that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape. Sexual intercourse with a wife aged 15 to 18 is therefore rape. Gupta J, in a separate concurring judgment, added that the judgment has prospective effect, and the Court left the marital rape of adult women undecided.

What changed. The marital exception no longer protects a husband whose wife is under 18, which brings Section 375 into line with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which repealed the IPC and came into force on 1 July 2024, carries the age of eighteen in Exception 2 to its Section 63.

Read the judgment

Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 18 April, 2011 · still good law

Held. A two-judge bench, in a public interest petition about children trafficked into circuses, directed the Central Government to issue notifications within two months prohibiting the employment of children in circuses and directed the respondents to conduct simultaneous raids on all circuses to liberate children. Rescued children were to be kept in Care and Protective Homes until 18, or returned to willing parents after verification, and the respondents were to frame a rehabilitation scheme and file a compliance affidavit within ten weeks.

What changed. The order requires a ban on children working in circuses, raids to rescue them, placement or verified return home, and a rehabilitation scheme. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016, in force from 1 September 2016, renamed the 1986 Act the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and made its object the prohibition of engaging children in all occupations, so the circus direction sits inside a wider statute.

Read the judgment

M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court of India · 10 December, 1996 · later modified

Held. A three-judge bench directed that an employer who employs a child in contravention of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 pay Rs 20,000 for each child into a Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund, with the appropriate Government adding Rs 5,000 where no adult in the family is given a job. The income of the fund goes to the child's family while the child is sent for education, and the Court directed a survey of hazardous employment by the States, assured education on withdrawal, and for non-hazardous jobs a limit of four to six hours a day with two hours of education paid for by the employer.

What changed. Under the 1986 Act as amended in 2016, no child (a person under fourteen) may be employed or permitted to work in any occupation or process, with the exceptions in section 3(2) such as helping a family enterprise after school hours. Section 14B creates a Child and Adolescent Labour Rehabilitation Fund credited with the fine realised from the employer and Rs 15,000 from the appropriate Government for each child or adolescent. The Rs 20,000 employer payment and Rs 5,000 Government contribution directed in this case are not the figures in the Act.

Later modified. The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, as amended in 2016, now has its own rehabilitation fund (section 14B), credited with fines from employers and a Government payment of Rs 15,000 per child.

Read the judgment

See the full Development Law Docket →