Twelve years after the sexual assault of a six-year-old child inside a Bengaluru school first shocked the city, the case continues to stand as a painful reminder that justice in India is often tested not only by the gravity of the crime, but by the endurance demanded of survivors and their families. What began in 2014 as a case that triggered public outrage, protests, arrests and wall-to-wall media attention has, over time, become a story about institutional delay and about how a system can exhaust a child and her family long before it delivers closure.
Widely known as the Vibgyor school case, it involved allegations of sexual abuse on school premises, with two staff members accused of sexually assaulting the child. The school chairman was also charged under Section 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly concealing information about the offence. Yet, even in a case involving a vulnerable child survivor and a statute specifically designed to ensure speed and sensitivity, the trial remains ongoing.
The delay has never been merely procedural. It has had a deeply human cost.
Charges were framed only in 2019. The case was subsequently transferred to a fasttrack Special POCSO Court and in August 2021, Enfold Proactive Health Trust, the Support Person Organisation for the child survivor, referred the case to iProbono India for legal representation. The child survivor was examined only partially in 2022 and was recalled again in 2023. By February 2024, the trial court closed the stage of evidence after repeated difficulties concerning the child’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), including the absence of signatures of the child and the Magistrate and the non-appearance of the Magistrate who had recorded it. A writ petition followed, resulting in a stay of the trial and once again, the proceedings came to a halt.
The Karnataka High Court’s order dated 3 July 2026 has now revived the matter and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within eight weeks from receipt of the order. The judgment is significant because it acknowledges the urgency of a case that had already remained pending for twelve years. It also interprets the POCSO framework to hold that a child’s statement under Section 164 does not become invalid merely because it lacks the child’s signature, observing that the law does not prescribe such a requirement for child victims. Importantly, the Court clarified that the timeline it fixed is not merely aspirational but mandatory.
The judgment is undoubtedly an important step forward. But it also brings into sharp focus a larger truth. When a case involving a minor survivor remains trapped in procedural delay for over a decade, “justice delayed is justice denied” ceases to be a legal maxim and becomes a lived reality.
At the same time, the present order may not mark the end of the legal journey. There is a serious preliminary view that the High Court’s judgement may be challenged before the Supreme Court. The concern is not with the urgency of completing the trial, which is unquestionably the need of the hour, but with the risk that unresolved questions about the Section 164 could weaken the prosecution’s case. This could allow the accused to challenge the admissibility or reliability of the statement in appeal, potentially affecting the outcome of the case.
Even if the trial court proceeds in accordance with the High Court’s directions and treats the Section 164 statement as valid, it is reasonable to expect that counsel for the accused will argue that non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 164 caused serious prejudice to the defence. They may contend that such prejudice is incurable and undermines the evidentiary reliability of the statement itself. There remains a real possibility that such an argument could find favour at the appellate stage, especially if the Supreme Court ultimately concludes that established principles of criminal jurisprudence require stricter compliance with procedural safeguards.
That is why this case remains so significant. It is not only about finishing a delayed trial. It is also about ensuring that the eventual outcome, whatever it may be, is capable of withstanding further judicial scrutiny.
A speedy conclusion is essential. But in a case this old, this sensitive, and this legally complex, justice will be complete only if it is both timely and durable.
