Ansh and Param’s* reunion with their father highlights the delicate balance between safeguarding children and respecting their choices.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, was enacted to safeguard children who have been sexually assaulted from further harm. Its provisions include measures to protect children from encountering their abusers at the time of testifying1, preventing contact with abusers, and ensuring that the child is removed from unsafe family settings when necessary. These safeguards aim to reduce trauma. But sometimes, such cases can challenge these guidelines. 

This is borne out in the story of Ansh and Param*, two brothers reunited with their father, Sanjay*, after a seven-year separation. 

Sanjay was convicted of sexually assaulting Param. The case underscores the delicate balance between the imperative to protect children and the need to respect their agency in making choices. 

A Fragmented Family

Ansh and Param grew up in a Child Care Institution (CCI) after their mother’s death, due to their  father’s inability to care for them. In 2017, during a visit to their father’s home, Param was sexually abused by an inebriated Sanjay. Param confided in the CCI welfare officer about the abuse on his return, leading to Sanjay’s arrest  and legal proceedings being initiated against him. 

While in judicial custody, Sanjay repeatedly requested that he be allowed to see his sons, but the courts denied these requests to prevent him from influencing the boys during the trial. Later, as the children underwent therapy for behavioural and learning disorders, their counsellor raised concerns that a reunion could retraumatise them. However, both the children also repeatedly  expressed a desire to meet their father.

A Turning Point

In 2024, after Sanjay’s conviction, Param communicated to the court that he and Ansh wanted to see their father. At this time, iProbono India was appointed as their support person by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), tasked with facilitating the disbursement of final compensation and arranging the meeting.

Facilitating this reunion presented a unique challenge. While guidelines exist for arranging meetings between children and  incarcerated parents, no clear protocols exist for cases where the parent is also the perpetrator. Navigating this process required collaboration and careful consideration from all stakeholders, to ensure the children’s safety and well-being. 

A Reunion Like No Other

The reunion was arranged at the CWC premises, with meticulous coordination between prison officials, the shelter home, and the CWC. Sanjay, escorted by prison officials, waited in a private area to maintain a secure environment. When Ansh and Param entered the room and saw their father, the moment was charged with emotion. Sanjay had managed to purchase packets of chips as gifts for his sons. They shared stories, laughter, and questions. For a brief time, the family was whole again.

A Lesson in Listening

As the meeting concluded, the boys expressed their gratitude to everyone involved. The CWC recognised the significance of this moment, achieved through a collective effort grounded in  the principle of acting in the  best interest of the child2

The case highlights a critical lesson: that while legal and protective mechanisms prioritize the child’s welfare, the child’s voice must be heard in decisions about their rehabilitation. Ansh and Param’s desire to meet their father – despite his actions – was a deeply personal choice that had to be respected. Their emotional well-being depended not only on protection from harm but also on the opportunity to reconcile with the only family member they had left.

As the case demonstrated, every child is unique, as are their needs and circumstances. There can be no one-size-fits-all approach to child protection and rehabilitation. As stakeholders, it is our responsibility to remain flexible, empathetic, and open to the perspectives of children themselves. Empowering them to have a say in their journey can often lead to outcomes that are both healing and transformative.


*Names changed to protect identity.

[1] Section 36 of the POCSO Act, 2012: Child not to see accused at the time of testifying

[2] Section 3(iv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act, 2015) –  Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential.

*The Article is co-authored by Abhishek Yadav, Social Worker and Aishwarya Sinha, Senior Social Worker, iProbono India.

Login
Register With Us
Civil Society Organisations

If you are in need of pro bono legal assistance

Register with us
Legal Community

If you are interested in providing pro bono legal services

Join our network