https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-false-pocso-case-father-chief-secretary-guidelines-534277 [15/05, 10:58] sekarreporter1: While granting bail to a father who was accused of allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter, the Madras High Court recently observed that there was an alarming trend where officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee, shelter homes, etc., were insisting children to make sexual abuse allegations against their fathers. Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that

by Sekar Reporter · May 15, 2026

[15/05, 10:58] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-false-pocso-case-father-chief-secretary-guidelines-534277
[15/05, 10:58] sekarreporter1: While granting bail to a father who was accused of allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter, the Madras High Court recently observed that there was an alarming trend where officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee, shelter homes, etc., were insisting children to make sexual abuse allegations against their fathers.

Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that in many cases, the children might be approaching these authorities only to ventilate their grievances relating to the domestic discord happening between their parents. However, instead of addressing the issue appropriately, officers were compelling victims to make sexual misconduct accusations against their own family members.

“ While perusing the statement of the victim, this Court painfully notices an alarming trend in certain cases involving allegations against fathers, wherein some officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee, shelter homes, or even police personnel appear to insist upon or induce the child victims to make allegations of sexual abuse against their fathers,” court noted.
The court added that such conduct amounts to gross abuse of official power, which not only traumatises the child but also undermines the sanctity of the process contemplated under the child protection laws. The court added that the object of child helpline mechanism is to protect a distressed child with immediate assistance, and the same could not be misused in a manner causing further mental trauma to the child. The court underlined that false allegations not just result in damage to reputation but also cause severe psychological trauma and legal entanglements.

“ The object of the “1098” Child Helpline mechanism is to protect children in distress and to provide immediate assistance, care, and counselling. The said mechanism cannot be permitted to be misused in a manner causing further mental trauma and ignominy to children by compelling them to make false allegations. False allegations carry devastating consequences resulting in reputational damage severe psychological trauma and legal entanglements,” the court said.
The court thus directed the chief secretary to formulate suitable guidelines to all authorities dealing with children, including officials responding to complaints received through “1098” Child Helpline Number, officials attached to the Child Welfare Committees, shelter homes, and police personnel, directing them to record statements of children in a fair and transparent manner without inducing, tutoring or coercing them to make false allegations against any person, including family member.

The court made the directions in a bail petition filed by a father who was accused for alleged offences under Sections 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The father was arrested on April 16, 2026 and was lodged in District Jail.

The father informed the court that he had not committed any offence. He submitted that he had scolded his daughter for continuously using phone all day, which resulted in frequent quarrels between him and his wife. He submitted that in this background, the child contacted “1098′ helpline and subsequently, at the insistence of the officials, a false complaint was lodged against the father.

The court perused the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of CrPC and noted that even in the statement, the child had stated that the officer who attended her call had insisted that she give a complaint as though her father had subjected her to “bad touch”. The court also noted that the victim was confined in a shelter home for 5 days and was intimidated by the officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee that unless she gave a complaint against her father, action would be taken against her. The court noted that the child’s statement would disclose that she was subjected to pressure and coercion to make allegations against her father.

Noting the victim’s statement and the period of incarceration by the father, the court was inclined to grant him bail.

The court also directed the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, to conduct an enquiry against the officer attached to the Child Welfare Committee, District Collector, Virudhunagar District, and the officer who attended the “1098” call and insisted the victim to make false allegations against her father and submit a report.

The court also directed the District Collector, Virudhunagar to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the victim for the mental trauma undergone by her, compelling her to make allegations against her father.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms.K.Asha

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209

Case Title: B Gurunathan v The State

Case No: Crl.O.P(MD).No.9466 of 2026
[15/05, 10:58] Meta AI: *“Madras High Court Flags ‘Alarming Trend’ Of Child Welfare Officials, Police Allegedly Inducing Children To Accuse Fathers Of Sexual Abuse”*
_LiveLaw | May 14, 2026_ ce7b

*1. Case Background*
*Petition*: Bail plea by a father arrested on *April 16, 2026* under *Sections 7 r/w 8 POCSO Act*. Lodged in District Jail. ce7b

*Allegation*: Daughter called *1098 Child Helpline* after father scolded her for _“continuously using phone all day”_, which caused quarrels with wife. ce7b

*2. What the Court Found*
1. *Victim’s Sec 164 CrPC statement*: Child said the officer who attended her call _“insisted that she give a complaint as though her father had subjected her to ‘bad touch’”_.
2. *Coercion at shelter home*: Victim was confined in a shelter home for 5 days. _“Intimidated by officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee that unless she gave a complaint against her father, action would be taken against her.”_
3. *Pressure disclosed*: _“Child’s statement would disclose that she was subjected to pressure and coercion to make allegations against her father”_. ce7b

*3. Court’s Observations – “Alarming Trend”*
The court noted false allegations _“carry devastating consequences resulting in reputational damage, severe psychological trauma and legal entanglements”_ by _“compelling them to make false allegations”_. ce7b

Called it an _“alarming trend”_ of officials inducing children to accuse fathers.

*4. Directions to Chief Secretary*
Madras HC directed the *Chief Secretary* to formulate *suitable guidelines* for all authorities dealing with children, including:
1. *Officials responding to 1098 Child Helpline*
2. *Child Welfare Committees*
3. *Shelter homes*
4. *Police personnel* ce7b

*Guidelines must*: Direct them to _“record statements of children in a fair and transparent manner without inducing, tutoring or coercing them to make false allegations against any person, including family member.”_ ce7b

*5. Related POCSO False Case Patterns*
The case fits a pattern HC has flagged before:
1. *Matrimonial disputes*: _“Mother Force Daughter For False POCSO Case”_ – conviction set aside as case arose from _“matrimonial disputes and pending divorce”_. Court found _“victim girl has been tutored by her own mother to depose falsely”_.
2. *Taekwondo coach*: False POCSO complaint by 3 girls at instigation of others. HC quashed case, said girls _“categorically stated that petitioner was a man of good nature and never indulged in any sexual abuse”_.
3. *School discipline*: HC quashed POCSO against teacher, holding _“sexual intent”_ missing. _“Criminal law cannot be used as instrument to criminalise corrective action.”_ 3c8580cc5cd0

*6. Significance*
1. *Systemic check*: First time HC orders state-wide guidelines specifically for 1098 helpline & CWC to prevent tutoring of children.
2. *Due process*: Reinforces that child statements must be voluntary – protects both children and falsely accused parents.
3. *Balance*: POCSO is stringent, but HC signals misuse through coercion by authorities will face judicial scrutiny.

*Bottom line*: Madras HC granted bail to father, found 1098 helpline officer & CWC staff coerced daughter into false _“bad touch”_ complaint after family dispute over phone use. Called it _“alarming trend”_ and ordered Chief Secretary to frame guidelines to stop officials from inducing/tutoring children into false allegations against family members.

Want the full order text or details on existing 1098 SOPs vs what HC wants changed?
[15/05, 10:58] Meta AI: *Madras High Court flags “alarming trend” of officials inducing children to file false POCSO cases against fathers*
_Crl.O.P(MD) No.9466/2026 | B Gurunathan v The State | Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan | 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209_

*1. Case Facts*
*Accused*: Father *B Gurunathan*, arrested *April 16, 2026* under *Sec 7 r/w 8 POCSO Act*. In District Jail.
*Background*: Father scolded daughter for _“continuously using phone all day”_. Led to quarrels with wife. Daughter called *1098 Child Helpline*.

*Father’s claim*: No offence committed. Complaint was false, lodged _“at the insistence of officials”_.

*2. What HC Found in Victim’s Statement*
1. *Sec 164 CrPC statement*: Child herself said the officer who took the 1098 call _“insisted that she give a complaint as though her father had subjected her to ‘bad touch’”_.
2. *Shelter home coercion*: Victim confined in shelter home for *5 days*. CWC officials _“intimidated”_ her – _“unless she gave a complaint against her father, action would be taken against her”_.
3. *Conclusion*: _“Child’s statement would disclose that she was subjected to pressure and coercion to make allegations against her father”_.

*3. Court’s Observations – “Gross Abuse of Power”*
Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan noted:

> *“While perusing the statement of the victim, this Court painfully notices an alarming trend in certain cases involving allegations against fathers, wherein some officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee, shelter homes, or even police personnel appear to insist
[15/05, 10:58] Meta AI: *Madras High Court flags “alarming trend” of officials inducing children to file false POCSO cases against fathers*
_Crl.O.P(MD) No.9466/2026 | B Gurunathan v The State | Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan | 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209_

*Father’s claim*: No offence committed. Complaint was false, lodged _“at the insistence of officials”_.

*3. Court’s Observations – “Gross Abuse of Power”*
Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan noted:

> _“While perusing the statement of the victim, this Court painfully notices an alarming trend in certain cases involving allegations against fathers, wherein some officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee, shelter homes, or even police personnel appear to insist upon or induce the child victims to make allegations of sexual abuse against their fathers.”_

1. *Children’s real intent*: In many cases, children approach authorities _“only to ventilate their grievances relating to domestic discord happening between their parents”_.
2. *Officials’ failure*: Instead of addressing issue appropriately, officers _“compelling victims to make sexual misconduct accusations against their own family members”_.
3. *Impact*: _“Gross abuse of official power… not only traumatises the child but also undermines the sanctity of the process contemplated under child protection laws.”_
4. *1098 misuse*: *“Object of ‘1098’ Child Helpline
[15/05, 10:58] Meta AI: *Madras High Court flags “alarming trend” of officials inducing children to file false POCSO cases against fathers*
_Crl.O.P(MD) No.9466/2026 | B Gurunathan v The State | Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan | 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209_

*Father’s claim*: No offence committed. Complaint was false, lodged _“at the insistence of officials”_.

*3. Court’s Observations – “Gross Abuse of Power”*
Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan noted:

1. *Children’s real intent*: In many cases, children approach authorities _“only to ventilate their grievances relating to domestic discord happening between their parents”_.
2. *Officials’ failure*: Instead of addressing issue appropriately, officers _“compelling victims to make sexual misconduct accusations against their own family members”_.
3. *Impact*: _“Gross abuse of official power… not only traumatises the child but also undermines the sanctity of the process contemplated under child protection laws.”_
4. *1098 misuse*: _“Object of ‘1098’ Child Helpline… is to protect children in distress… cannot be permitted to be misused in a manner causing further mental trauma”_.
_“False allegations carry devastating consequences resulting in reputational damage, severe psychological trauma and legal entanglements.”_

*4. Directions Issued*
1. *To Chief Secretary*: _“Formulate suitable guidelines”_ for all authorities dealing with children:
– Officials on *1098 Child Helpline*
– *Child Welfare Committees*
– *Shelter homes*
– *Police personnel*
Guidelines to ensure statements are recorded _“in a fair and transparent manner without inducing, tutoring or coercing them to make false allegations against any person, including family member.”_

2. *Enquiry ordered*: *IGP, South Zone* to enquire against:
– Officer attached to CWC, Vir