Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Latest Articles
Back
Child Care Institutions and its Judicial Interpretations
Different kinds of child care institutions that come under the purview of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are mentioned under section 2 of the Act that include Observation Homes, Special Homes, Children Homes, Foster Care, Open Shelter and After care Homes. Section 2(21) of the JJA, 2015 defines ‘child care institutions’. In a juvenile system, there are usually two categories of children: children in need of care and protection and children who are in conflict with law. Children in need of care and protection includes children who are abandoned, orphans, homeless and children subjected to beggary, human trafficking etc. while children in conflict with law are the ones who are accused or convicted of a crime. The objective of the provisions seems to be positive one but through the years certain fallacies in the implementation of such laws have been put forth before the court of law.
In the landmark judgement of Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India and Ors.[1], a newspaper article “Orphanage or Places for Child Abuse” was published and based on this article, a petition was taken up. It was registered as a PIL that reported that the children in orphanages run by NGOs and government institutions were sexually abused. Indian tourists and foreigners were given sexual services and the rates for it were fixed over meetings or over phones in the orphanages. It was reported by the Ministry of Family and Child Welfare and UNICEF that 53% of children were abused in institutions as well by their relatives. Thus, in this case the court gave several orders. The court gave directions that the definition of “child in need of care and protection” should be extended to all children who in fact need care and protection. It also held that the Union Government and the governments of the State and Union Territories must give importance to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of such children. Government schemes such as skill development, vocational training etc. should be used to rehabilitate children. It directed the Government to conduct regular inspections of the child care institutions and a child care plan for each child in the institutions. It said that social audits are the best way by which there can be transparency and accountability in the functioning of these institutions.
In cases of Gaurav Jain v. Union of India[2] and Vishaljeet v. Union of India[3], it brought up an issue of rehabilitation of children of sex workers and child sex workers. The court did not agree for separate hostels and schools for children of sex workers as they have the right to equality of opportunity, dignity, care, protection and rehabilitation and the separation would hinder their integration in the mainstream of society.
In, Article in Mumbai Mirror 24.08.2010, Rescue Sham vs. The State of Maharashtra[4], there was a PIL on the basis of a newspaper article which talked about the inhuman condition of Children’s Home. The court gave orders to review the licenses of Homes especially of those who took care of mental deficient children. Several other similar orders were given. Now, despite the courts giving such orders for reformation, these orders haven’t been implemented. Therefore, the child care institutions have become mere centres of abuse, exploitation and prostitution. There is no check on the functioning of institutions.
[1] (2017) 7 SCC 578
[2] AIR 1990 SC 292.
[3] (1990) 3 SCC 318.
[4] 2017 (4) BomCR 100
