Failure to Report under POCSO: Section 21 and Linda Sema 2026

Failure to report under POCSO is a crime in itself: under s.21(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012, any person who fails to report a sexual offence against a child that he or she knows of, as required by s.19(1), faces up to 6 months, or fine, or both, and a person in charge of an institution who fails to report an offence by a subordinate faces up to 1 year and fine (s.21(2)). In AAA v. Linda Sema (9 July 2026), the Supreme Court held that a child’s direct disclosure counts as “knowledge”, and that the Act allows no institutional “verification” before reporting. A child is never punished for not reporting (s.21(3)).

Section 19 and section 21: how failure to report under POCSO works

Section 19(1) puts the duty on “any person”, including the child, who apprehends that an offence is likely or knows that one has been committed. The information must go to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. Telling a principal, manager or parent is a sensible step, but the legal duty is met only when the police are informed.

Section 21 then punishes the failure in three ways:

1. s.21(1): anyone who fails to report under s.19(1) or s.20, or fails to record the information under s.19(2), faces up to 6 months, or fine, or both. The second limb catches police officers who refuse to record.
2. s.21(2): a person in charge of a company or institution who fails to report an offence committed by a subordinate under his or her control faces up to 1 year and fine.
3. s.21(3): none of this applies to a child.

This page focuses on who is liable and what the courts have said. For the day-to-day duties of schools, wardens and principals, see our guide on POCSO mandatory reporting for schools and colleges.

AAA v. Linda Sema (2026): the ruling that ended “verify first”

An eight-year-old told her school headmistress about a sexual assault by an older student, a Class VIII boy. The headmistress carried out her own “verification”: she questioned the accused, watched the children for days, concluded nothing had happened and did not go to the police. She was charged with failure to report, but was discharged before trial. The Supreme Court restored the case against her on 9 July 2026 and held:

• “Knowledge” under s.19(1) is not limited to eyewitness knowledge; it includes credible information received directly from the victim, and a child’s direct disclosure is to be treated as credible.
• No institutional verification before reporting is contemplated by the Act. Investigation follows the report; it does not precede it.
• A mini-trial at the discharge stage is wrong; whether the accused is guilty is for the trial.
• Liability was confined to the person who received the disclosure directly. Staff who had no direct knowledge and merely relied on her assessment were not prosecuted.

The earlier cases

• Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court, 25 April 2013): persons in charge of schools and institutions who learn of sexual abuse of a child must report it to the SJPU or local police; hospitals must do so for children admitted to them.
• State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar (Supreme Court, November 2022): the prosecution of a doctor who did not report abuse of hostel girls was restored; the Court described non-reporting as a serious crime that tends to shield offenders.
• Shivaprasad Bhat v. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court, 2 July 2026): a school cannot replace the police report with an internal inquiry.

Who is liable for failure to report under POCSO, in practice

• The adult who heard the disclosure: a class teacher, coach, warden, counsellor or nurse. After Linda Sema, this person is most exposed.
• The head of the institution: under s.21(2), where the alleged offender is a subordinate, such as a teacher, driver or cook.
• A parent or relative who knows: s.19(1) covers “any person”. Family support matters, but the family cannot veto a report the law requires of the person who knows.
• A police officer who refuses to record the information.
• Media, hotel, hospital, club or studio staff who come across sexually exploitative material involving a child and do not report it (s.20).

Real-life example: in a Patna coaching centre, a 16-year-old tells a faculty member that the transport in-charge touches her in the van. The centre head says, “Let me speak to him tomorrow.” Both adults are now exposed. The faculty member has direct knowledge from the child; the safe course is a police report the same day, with the head joining in and the transport in-charge kept off duty.

Frequently asked questions

What is the punishment for failure to report under POCSO?

Under s.21(1), up to 6 months’ imprisonment, or fine, or both. A person in charge of an institution who fails to report an offence by a subordinate faces up to 1 year and fine under s.21(2).

Can a teacher be punished for not reporting child abuse?

Yes. The duty under s.19(1) is personal to anyone who knows of or apprehends the offence. In AAA v. Linda Sema (2026), the Supreme Court restored the prosecution of a headmistress who received a child’s disclosure and did not report it.

Can the school hold an internal inquiry before reporting?

No. The Supreme Court in Linda Sema (9 July 2026) held that the POCSO Act does not contemplate institutional verification before reporting. The school may handle employment matters separately, after the police are informed.

What if I report and it turns out to be false?

You are protected. Section 19(7) shields anyone who gives information in good faith from civil and criminal liability. Only knowingly false complaints made with a bad purpose are punishable, under s.22.

Quick quiz

For heads, teachers and staff who carry this duty: POCSO and Child Protection certificate course, ₹499.

Sources

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: ss.19(1), 19(2), 19(7), 20, 21(1) to (3), 22
• AAA v. Linda Sema, Supreme Court, 9 July 2026
• Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, Supreme Court, 25 April 2013
• State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, Supreme Court, November 2022
• Shivaprasad Bhat v. State of Karnataka, Karnataka High Court, 2 July 2026

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case. Law as on 31 October 2026.