Summary
Addressing prolonged failures to implement juvenile justice legislation, the Supreme Court issued institutional, staffing, training and oversight directions under the 2015 framework. It required effective child-rights bodies, functioning Boards and Committees, meaningful child-welfare policing, better care institutions and use of technology. High Courts were requested to initiate suo motu implementation proceedings and consider child-friendly and vulnerable-witness courts. The petition was disposed of, with a further directions listing for High Court responses.
Issues
- What measures were required to make the juvenile justice system effective and protect children’s rights.
- How statutory bodies, governments, legal-services institutions and High Courts should discharge their implementation roles.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015State Child Protection Societies and District Child Protection Units must ensure implementation, functioning institutions and coordination with official and non-official agencies. (¶¶ 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 95)
- Section 107, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015Required meaningful child-welfare police officers and special juvenile police units, with defined functions and training, rather than merely nominal constitution. (¶¶ 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 95)
- Sections 3 and 13, Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005Emphasised timely appointments, adequate staffing and earnest exercise of the National Commission’s child-rights functions, alongside corresponding State institutions. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 95)
- Rule 64, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016Stressed trained probation officers, social investigation, individual care planning and post-release support; staffing needs were to be studied and met. (¶¶ 74, 75, 76, 95)
Held
- Repeal of the 2000 Act did not render the implementation petition infructuous: the continuing problems remained live under the 2015 Act. Protection and rehabilitation of children were statutory and constitutional obligations, requiring effective enforcement rather than charity or symbolic compliance. (¶¶ 20, 32, 42, 87, 88)
- Governments were to fill National and State Child Rights Commission positions in time, provide staff, and fill Board and Committee vacancies expeditiously under the applicable rules. Those bodies had to perform proactively; Boards and Committees required regular sittings, with local workload informing arrangements. (¶¶ 59, 60, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 78, 95)
- Child Protection Societies and District Units were responsible for effective implementation and care standards covering nutrition, education, health, skills and living conditions, with NGO and civil-society assistance. Child Rights Commissions were to undertake time-bound studies, particularly on probation-officer requirements, followed by governmental remedial action and appointments. (¶¶ 63, 64, 65, 74, 75, 76, 95)
- MWCD was to develop the use of technology for information, missing and trafficked children and adoption follow-up. Child-welfare policing had to function meaningfully, with responsibilities identified and expertise obtained where needed; police academies were to consider regular child-rights teaching. All relevant justice, protection, policing and institutional personnel required sensitisation and training. (¶¶ 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 95)
- Registration of child-care institutions was compulsory. The judgment sought effective monitoring, adequate conditions and staffing, civil-society Visitors supported by legal-services authorities, and meaningful financial support through the Juvenile Justice Fund. NALSA was requested to update its implementation report preferably before 30 April 2018. (¶¶ 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95)
- Each High Court’s Chief Justice was requested to register suo motu implementation proceedings, supporting the High Court Juvenile Justice Committee and addressing obstacles after hearing government authorities. Copies were to be transmitted to all High Courts. (¶ 95)
- Chief Justices were urged to consider child-friendly and vulnerable-witness courts in every district for sensitive juvenile and victim proceedings; such facilities could also assist adult women victims of sexual offences. The petition was disposed of, but a further directions listing on 13 March 2018 was ordered after obtaining High Court responses. (¶¶ 96, 97, 98, 99)
Result
Petition disposed of with implementation directions and requests to governments, statutory bodies, legal-services authorities and High Courts; Registry directed to list the matter on 13 March 2018 after obtaining High Court responses.