Yesterday, the Top Court criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for failing to comply with its order regarding the examination of minor survivor of sexual assault, emphasizing that its orders are not issued frivolously.

A vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, which granted the prosecution one week to examine the survivor in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case, cautioned that it would summon the state's Home Secretary if the examination was not completed within the specified timeframe.

Justice Amanullah emphasized to senior advocate Garima Prasad, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, that their order was mandatory and expected to be strictly adhered to, stating, "We do not issue orders frivolously."

The top court was considering the bail application of the man accused of raping the girl.

"We are seeing it happening day in and day out... every state counsel is taking our orders casually. If it is not done within one week, we will call your Home Secretary here. We are at fault for letting these things happen... the fault is on our part. The message has to go (out)," an annoyed Supreme Court bench said.

Ms. Prasad initially requested an adjournment, citing a condolence meeting at the trial court as the reason for the survivor's evidence not being recorded. The bench criticized the state's counsel for their casual approach, noting that since it was a "mandatory order," the prosecution should have filed a petition for an extension if needed.

"Be very careful in court. Now we are going to take serious note of this. It was your duty to file a proper application for an extension of time," it told Ms Prasad and granted a week to examine the survivor.

The accused, charged with the alleged rape and criminal intimidation of a 16-year-old girl, challenged the Allahabad High Court's decision to reject his bail plea on November 30 last year.

According to the prosecution, an FIR dated September 19, 2023, was filed against the accused for reportedly sexually assaulting the teenager repeatedly over a period of six months.

Previously, noting that several witnesses in the case had not yet been examined, the Supreme Court directed that the survivor be examined by June 30. The accused claimed that none of the material witnesses in the case had been examined and sought bail on this basis.