Supreme Court Directs States to Implement Child Rights Laws Effectively: Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 102 (9 February 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 9 February 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 102
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.
Can the judiciary intervene when the State fails to protect the fundamental rights of vulnerable children? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court expressed its concern over the tardy implementation of laws aimed at protecting children and directed the Union and State Governments to take concrete steps to ensure the effective enforcement of these laws.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Sampurna Behura, a researcher in sociology, who was deeply concerned about the plight of children in India. She highlighted the failure of various State Governments to implement the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which was later replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The petitioner drew attention to the constitutional responsibility of the State to protect the rights of children and the obligations arising from international conventions like the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The writ petition was initially filed in 2005, and notices were issued to the Union of India and all State Governments. The Court observed that many provisions of the Act of 2000 had not been implemented, highlighting the horrible conditions in some children’s homes. The Court impleaded the NCPCR and NALSA to assist in the matter. NALSA submitted a detailed report on the existing facilities for the implementation of the Act of 2000. The Court also emphasized the need for Special Juvenile Police Units and the registration of Child Care Institutions. After the enactment of the JJ Act in 2016, the Court identified 15 key issues for consideration and directed the Union and State Governments to provide necessary assistance.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, was invoked to highlight the violation of children’s rights in inadequate care facilities.

• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, were central to the case. The Court noted the failure of State Governments to implement various provisions of these Acts.

• Section 3 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, which provides for the constitution of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR).

• Section 13 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, which details the functions of the NCPCR.

• Section 17 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, which provides for the composition of the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR).

• Section 106 of the JJ Act, which provides for the constitution of a State-level Child Protection Society and a District-level Child Protection Unit.

• Section 4 of the JJ Act, which outlines the composition of the Juvenile Justice Board.

• Section 7 of the JJ Act, which deals with the procedure to be followed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

• Section 107 of the JJ Act, which mandates the appointment of a Child Welfare Police Officer (CWPO) and a Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) in each district.

• Rule 64 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, which details the duties of a Probation Officer.

• Rule 84 and Rule 85 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, which details the functions of the State Child Protection Society and the District Child Protection Unit respectively.

• Rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, which details the duties and responsibilities of Child Welfare Police Officers (CWPOs) and Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPUs).

• Rule 87 and Rule 88 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, which pertains to the selection of social workers as members of the Juvenile Justice Board.

• Rule 89 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, which provides for the training of the Principal Magistrate and the social workers.

Arguments

The petitioner, Sampurna Behura, argued that the State Governments had failed to implement the provisions of the Act of 2000, leading to a violation of the fundamental rights of children. She highlighted the lack of proper infrastructure in child care institutions, the absence of functional Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), and the need for effective legal aid for children in conflict with the law.

The Union of India, through the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD), acknowledged the issues and stated that it had initiated steps to ensure the registration of child care institutions and the implementation of the JJ Act. The MWCD also highlighted its efforts to create an online Central Level Monitoring System to collect data and monitor the implementation of the Act.

NALSA emphasized the need for quality legal aid lawyers and the importance of training for all stakeholders involved in the juvenile justice system. They also highlighted the need for regular sittings of JJBs and CWCs and the importance of Social Investigation Reports by Probation Officers.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified the following issues for consideration:

1. Constitution of State Child Protection Society.
2. Constitution of State Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights.
3. Establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) in every district and their training.
4. Establishment of Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and their training.
5. Appointment of Probation Officers and their training.
6. Establishment of Special Juvenile Police Units in every Police Station, their training, and updating the Police Training Manual.
7. Provision for legal aid lawyers and their training.
8. Proper selection of members of JJBs and CWCs.
9. Assessment of manpower requirements of JJBs and CWCs and filling up the vacancies.
10. Furnishing of on-line quarterly reports by the State Governments.
11. Significance of Social Investigation Report.
12. Principal Magistrates should exclusively deal with Juvenile Justice inquiries.
13. Registration of child care institutions.
14. Improvement of living conditions in government-run child care institutions.
15. Establishment of Juvenile Justice Fund.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and the material on record, issued several directions to ensure the effective implementation of the JJ Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the fundamental rights of children, who are often voiceless and vulnerable. The Court expressed deep concern over the lack of implementation of the JJ Act and the apathy of the State Governments towards the welfare of children. The Court emphasized the importance of effective functioning of the various bodies established under the JJ Act, such as the NCPCR, SCPCRs, JJBs, CWCs, and the need for proper training of all stakeholders. The Court also highlighted the importance of technology in improving the efficiency of the juvenile justice system and the need for adequate funding for the Juvenile Justice Fund.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of children, the statutory obligations of the State under the JJ Act, and the need for a child-friendly justice system. The Court rejected the argument that the judiciary should not intervene in matters of policy, stating that it is the duty of the judiciary to ensure that the State fulfills its constitutional and statutory obligations.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”

• “The nation ‘s children are a supremely important asset. Their nurture and solicitude are our responsibility.”

• “It is easy to forget that children also deserve dignified treatment and merely because they have no voice in the affairs of State, it does not mean that they are inconsequential members of society who can be compelled to live in conditions that are uncomfortable (to say the least) and who have little or no access to justice.”

Key Takeaways

• State Governments and Union Territories must ensure that all positions in the NCPCR and SCPCRs are filled up in a timely manner.

• State Child Protection Societies and District Child Protection Units must actively involve NGOs and civil society in their functioning.

• JJBs and CWCs must have regular sittings to ensure timely justice for children.

• The role of Probation Officers is critical, and they must be adequately trained.

• Special Juvenile Police Units must be set up and trained effectively.

• Child Care Institutions must be registered and must provide a dignified living environment for children.

• The Juvenile Justice Fund must be adequately funded by the State Governments.

• Technology must be used to improve the efficiency of the juvenile justice system.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) and State Governments should ensure that all positions in the NCPCR and SCPCRs are filled up well in time and adequate staff is provided to these statutory bodies.
2. The NCPCR and the SCPCRs should take their duties, functions, and responsibilities with great earnestness.
3. State-level Child Protection Societies and District-level Child Protection Units have an enormous responsibility in ensuring that the JJ Act is effectively implemented.
4. State Governments must ensure that all positions in the JJBs and CWCs are filled up expeditiously.
5. The JJBs and CWCs must have sittings on a regular basis.
6. The NCPCR and the SCPCRs must carry out time-bound studies on various issues under the JJ Act.
7. The NCPCR and the SCPCRs must carry out a study for estimating the number of Probation Officers required.
8. The MWCD must continue to make creative use of information and communication technology.
9. It is important for the police to appreciate their role as the first responder on issues pertaining to children.
10. The National Police Academy and State Police Academies must consider including child rights as part of their curriculum.
11. The management of Child Care Institutions is extremely important, and State Governments must ensure that all such institutions are registered.
12. State Governments should appoint eminent persons from civil society as Visitors to monitor and supervise the Child Care Institutions.
13. The JJ Fund must be adequately funded.
14. NALSA is requested to carry forward the exercise of collecting data and information relating to the JJ Act and complete a similar report preferably before 30th April, 2018.
15. Training is vital for the effective implementation of the JJ Act, and all authorities must be sensitized and given adequate training.
16. Each High Court and the Juvenile Justice Committee of each High Court should continue its proactive role in the welfare of children in their State.
17. 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.
18. The Chief Justice of each High Court is requested to seriously consider establishing child-friendly courts and vulnerable witness courts in each district.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the importance of child rights and the need for effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act. The judgment clarifies the responsibilities of various stakeholders, including the Union and State Governments, the judiciary, and civil society, in ensuring the protection and welfare of children. The Court’s directions emphasize the need for a child-friendly justice system and the use of technology to improve efficiency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India is a landmark decision that underscores the importance of protecting the rights of children. The Court’s directions provide a roadmap for the effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act and highlight the need for a proactive and compassionate approach towards the welfare of children. The judgment serves as a reminder that children are the future of the country and that their rights must be protected at all costs.