Above: Children enjoying an activity at a juvenile home in Hyderabad/Photo Courtesy: YouTube

In an indictment of the treatment of various governments towards juveniles, the apex court laid down specific guidelines

~By Sandeep Kumar

Nelson Mandela said: “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.” However, the state of children in India is a cause for concern. In 2005, Sampurna Behura, an individual who was concerned with the plight of children in the country, filed a petition in the Supreme Court drawing its attention to several Articles and Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution which impose primary responsibility on the State to ensure that the needs of children are met and their rights are protected. She drew attention to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1989, to which India is a signatory, which emphasises securing the best interests of the child, social reintegration of child victims, and so on.

The main issue of the petition was the failure of state governments to implement various provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, including the establishment of Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs), Special Juvenile Police Units, establishment of appropriate homes for children in need of protection, improving the living conditions of juveniles in conflict with law, medical facilities for children in custody of the state and other human rights issues.

The petition was first taken up for consideration on September 26, 2005. Notices were issued to all the respondents (Union of India and states) which took about a year. On January 3, 2007, the matter was taken up and the Court observed that the Act of 2000 had not been implemented.

After a few more hearings, the Court impleaded the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). During the course of hearing, the Court observed that CWCs and JJBs are not functional or not constituted in every district.

When the case was taken up for consideration on September 11, 2015, it was noticed from the affidavits filed by Union of India that a large number of children’s homes were not registered under the provisions of the Act of 2000. Thereafter, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was passed and brought into force on January 15, 2016.

However the Court held: “The Act of 2000 has since been repealed and what is now in force is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The repeal of the Act of 2000 does not at all change the sum and substance of the reliefs claimed in the Public Interest Litigation. As such this petition though filed way back in 2005 is not infructuous; the issues raised being very much topical and alive even today.”

SC DIRECTIONS

On February 9, 2018, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta issued the following directions:

• The Ministry of Women and Child Development and state governments should ensure that all positions in the NCPCR and the SCPRs are filled up well in time and adequate staff is provided to these statutory bodies.
• NCPCR and the SCPCRs should take their duties, functions and responsibilities with great earnestness.
• State-level Child Protection Societies and the district-level Child Protection Units to ensure that the Act of 2015 is effectively implemented and child care institutions are managed and maintained for the well-being of children in all respects, including nutrition, education, medical benefits, skill development and general living conditions.
• State governments must ensure that all positions in JJBs and CWCs are filled up expeditiously and in accordance with the rules framed.
• It is necessary for JJBs and CWCs to have sittings on a regular basis so that a minimal number of inquiries are pending at any given point of time and justice is given to all juveniles. This is a constitutional obligation.
• The Ministry of Women and Child Development must continue to make creative use of information and communication technology not only for the purpose of collecting data and information but also for other issues connected with the JJ Act such as having a database of missing children, trafficked children and for follow-up of adoption cases etc.
• There is a need to set up meaningful Special Juvenile Police Units and appoint Child Welfare Police Officers at the earliest and not only on paper.
• NALSA is being requested to carry forward the exercise and complete a similar report preferably before April 30, 2018, to assist all policy-making and decision-taking authorities to plan out their affairs.
• Each High Court and Juvenile Justice Committee of each High Court will continue its proactive role in the welfare of children in their state. The chief justice of every High Court is requested to register proceedings on its own motion for the effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
• Finally, the Court urged the chief justice of each High Court to seriously consider establishing child-friendly courts and vulnerable witness courts in each district. Inquiries under the JJ Act and trials under other laws such as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, require to be conducted with a high degree of sensitivity, care and empathy for the victim.

The Supreme Court bench also appreciated Sampurna Behura for highlighting the issues raised in her PIL and the counsel for the appearing parties in not making this an adversarial proceeding, but a constructive effort for the benefit of children.