Bench:

Hon'ble Justice Madan B. Lokur; Deepak Gupta, JJ.

Date of Judgment:

February 09, 2018

Enroll the Complete MasterClass Course on Hindu Laws: Click Here

Issue:

• WWhether there has been failure on the part of the State Governments to implement the various provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 concerning the living conditions of juveniles in conflict with law, medical facilities for children in the custody of the State and several other human rights issues.

Facts:

• Sampurna Behura, a social activist being concerned with the plight of children across the country filed a writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

• The instant writ petition brought to notice the various provisions of the Indian Constitution imposing the primary responsibility upon the State in order to ensure that the needs of the children are fulfilled and also to protect their basic human rights.

• The writ petition highlighted the failure on the part of the State Governments to implement the various provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 including, inter alia, the establishment of Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards, Special Juvenile Police Units, establishment of appropriate Homes for children in need of care and protection, improving the living conditions of juveniles in conflict with law, medical facilities for children in the custody of the State and several other human rights issues. It also highlighted the truly horrific condition of children in Children Homes across the country.

• The Petitioner in the case prayed that the Chief Secretaries and the Directors General of Police and Superintendents of Police of all the States should forthwith implement the Act of 2000 in its true spirit.

• DDuring the pendency of the proceedings, the Act of 2000 was repealed with the coming into force of the enactment, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The new Act brought in several changes in the juvenile justice system. However, the repeal of the Act of 2000 does not at all change the substratum of the reliefs claimed in the Public Interest Litigation filed way back in 2005 and as such it remained unaffected because the issues raised were very much relevant at that time.

Petitioner's Contentions:

• The petitioner contended that the provisions of the Act of 2000 had not been implemented in its true letter and spirit despite the fact that numerous years have passed since the coming into force of the Act.

• The petitioner contended that the instant writ petition highlights the horrible conditions of children in some Children Homes and that this was a violation of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• The petitioner submitted that the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which India is a signatory is a human rights treaty which also emphasizes inter alia, securing the best interests of the child, social reintegration of child victims, etc.

• The petitioner further contended that the Act of 2000 was approved by the Parliament after taking into consideration the various norms prescribed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985 (the Beijing Rules), the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Children Deprived of Liberty, 1990 and other relevant international instruments.

• The petitioner submitted a large number of steps concerning child rights and juvenile justice that need to be taken to improve the lives of children in Child Care Institutions and enable them to live with dignity. Most of these suggestions prescribed by the petitioner complement the suggestions prescribed by NALSA.

Respondent's Contentions:

• The respondents contended that there was considerable progress in the process of collecting and updating information online in Ministry of Development of Women and Children (MWCD) to the extent that a Central Level Monitoring Format had been prepared which the States and Union Territories could easily fill up for providing full information which could be collated.

• The respondents also stated that the names of persons in various positions, such as members of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) would be placed on the website of MWCD so that it would be easy to contact them whenever necessary.

• Learned Additional Solicitor General stated on behalf of the respondents that the assistance of the State Governments and the Union Territories was duly required in updating the information on the Central Level Monitoring System.

• NALSA submitted on record a copy of the Training Module for Probation Officers and Legal Services Lawyers and also suggested that since the Modules were prepared on the basis of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 NALSA would conduct some pilot training programmes to ascertain their efficacy and as such bring them in conformity with the new Rules to be framed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

• MMWCD argued that there is an acute shortage of computers and peripherals with the JJBs and CWCs and as such it is disturbing the effective administrative functioning of the two departments concerning the tracing and tracking of missing children, the rescue of children working in hazardous industries, trafficked children, children who leave the Child Care Institutions, victims of child sexual abuse and follow-up action, among several other requirements.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that the State needs to make sure that the JJ Act is implemented in a proper manner in order to cater to the needs of the children in the society. The Court issued several instructions, such as the Ministry of Development of Women and Children in the central and state governments should ensure that the National Commission for the Protection of Children’s Rights (NCPCR) and the State Commission for the Protection of Children’s Rights (SCPCR) performed optimally and effectively with adequate staff for the benefit of children and also in improving their lives meaningfully across the country. The Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) and the Child Welfare Committees (CWC) must hold regular sessions in order to serve expeditious delivery of justice to the juveniles in conflict with law. The NCPCR (National Commission for Protection of Child Rights) and the SCPR (State Commission for Protection of Child Rights) must carry out duties, functions, and responsibilities very seriously and they must conduct time-bound surveys from time to time as deemed necessary in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, and must also take remedial steps. The Court requested the Chief Justice of each High Court to consider establishing child friendly courts and vulnerable witness courts in each district to deal with children with sensitivity, care and empathy. The apex court opined that the State Governments and Union Territories would be well advised to ensure that all Child Care institutions are registered so that children can live a dignified life in these Institutions with proper education, healthcare and nutrition. All authorities such as JJBs and CWCs, Probation Officers, members of the Child Protection Societies and District Child Protection Units, Special Juvenile Police Units, Child Welfare Police Officers and managerial staff of Child Care Institutions must be sensitized and given adequate training relating to their position. The Court directed NALSA to prepare a report on the JJ Act before 30th April, 2018 to ‘assist all the policy making and decision taking authorities to plan out their affairs’.

Relevant Paragraph:

If Nelson Mandela is to be believed, ―Our children are our greatest treasure. They are our future. Those who abuse them tear at the fabric of our society and weaken our nation. Our policy and decision makers need to heed this advice and warning and appreciate that they are not doing any favour to the children of our country by caring for them – it is their constitutional obligation and the social justice laws enacted by Parliament need to be effectively and meaningfully enforced.