Allahabad High Court Pil No 20737 Of 2011 HAQ: Center for Child Rights B1/2, Ground Floor, Malviya Nagar New Delhi - 110017 Tel: +91-26677412,26673599 Fax: +91-26674688 Website: www.haqcrc.org FaceBook Page: https://www.facebook.com/HaqCentreForChildRights

1. Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20737 of 2011
Petitioner :- In The Matter Of Children Detained In Rajkiya Bal Grih Vns
Petitioner Counsel : Shri Sanjeev Singh
Respondent Counsel :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J.
1. Pursuant to our order dated 14.2.2012 an affidavit of compliance
sworn by the Chief Probation Officer, Mahila Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow on behalf of Director, Mahila Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
dated 27.3.2012 has been filed today which is taken on record.
2. We have heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, Amicus Curiae, Ms Usha
Kiran, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Deepak Verma holding brief
of Sri S.K. Garg, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of
India.
3. We have perused the affidavit of compliance filed by the Chief
Probation Officer, Mahila Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow pursuant to
our order dated 14.2.2012. Although paragraph 4 of the affidavit seems
to suggest that there were 889 inmates in the children’s institutions on
1.9.2011 and on 29.2.2012 the figure had been reduced to 805 but
actually there appears to be a bungling in the figures because after
adding the number of children already present in the institutions (viz.
889 as on 1.9.2011) with the newly admitted children between the
period 2.9.2011 to 29.2.2012 (i.e. 647), the total becomes 1536. But by
a faulty exercise not only the 500 inmates, who were rehabilitated by
being restored to their parents/ guardians in the aforesaid six months'
period, and the 17 children who were adopted and one child, who has
been transferred outside the country, i.e. 518 children who could be
said to have been rehabilitated which on subtracting from 1536 would
have left a figure of 1018 children who had yet not been rehabilitated.
But the figure 805, has been reached by also deducting the non-
rehabilitated children who were transferred to other children’s homes in
the State (119), the inmates who were transferred to children’s homes
in other States (65), the inmates who have escaped from the institution
(24) and the inmates who have died (5). This methodology is clearly
illegitimate. Thus the number of children who need to be rehabilitated
has increased to 1018, or 1013 (if the 5 children who have died are
excluded) from 889 and not declined to 805 as claimed.

2. 4.We are also disturbed to note that out of the total number of over
1000 children in the children’s homes only 17 children have been given
in adoption. Also we find that the process of adoption is very long
winded and dilatory. The respondents should spell out the reasons why
so few children have been given in adoption, requiring transfer of most
of the children who have crossed 10 years at the “Shishu Sadans,” (i.e.
institutions for children below 10 years) and whose parents could not
be located to children's homes for over 10 year olds till they reach
adulthood.
5.The Statutory laws, Rules and guidelines framed by the State and
CARA guidelines issued by the Central Governments for adoption and
the steps, if any, that have been taken for expediting the process of
adoption should be mentioned on the next hearing. We are of the view
that once the process of adoption gets delayed and the children (both
boys and girls) grow in age, few persons come forward seeking
adoption of the children. We would therefore like to be informed by the
Director of Women and Child Development about the number of
persons who have applied for adoption of children, and the period for
which their applications for adoption are pending and the agencies
before which the said applications are pending. How many applicants
dropped out because of delays in concluding the adoption process.
6. We are also not satisfied of the mere dispatch of the request
letter dated 8.2.2012 by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the
Additional Director General of Police (Headquarter), Lucknow that the
police tender assistance by sending the children to their natal homes
the task would be accomplished and the children would actually be
sent back home.
7.It may be mentioned that the Supreme Court in its order dated
12.10.2011 in Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India 2011(11) SCALE
512, has mandated the implementation of Section 63 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000 (“JJ Act” for short)
which requires appointment of juvenile/ children’s police units and
appointment of juvenile/child welfare police officers at the police
stations. We are informed that the stance of the State is that the
juvenile/ child police units have now been set up and juvenile/ child
welfare officers have been appointed.
8. However we are aware that even now complete and expeditious
steps are not being taken by the Juvenile/ Child Welfare Police Officers
and by the Juvenile/Child Police Units to perform their duties enjoined

3. in law, especially of speedily taking the children/ juveniles back to their
homes within the State or outside the State as soon as orders have
been passed for taking them back to their parental homes or to
children's institutions in their home States. A large number of children
regarding whom such orders have been passed for taking them back
home or to other States still remain confined at the children’s homes in
Varanasi and other places because of the laxity of the Juvenile/ Child
Police Units and Child Welfare Officers to immediately escort the
children back to their homes in violation of our direction in the order
dated 14.2.2012. We would also like to be informed by the Principal
Secretary, Women and Child Development, U.P. about the budgetary
support, if any, to officials of the home where the child is presently
housed to take back the child to his/ her home or to an institution in
his/her home State as required under section 38 of the JJ Act.
9.We would like to be furnished with detailed information from the
Director of Women and Child Development and the ADG (Crime) or
(Headquarters), [whoever has been given charge of implementing
section 63 of the J.J. Act], about the number of children regarding
whom request letters have been sent by the authorities of the
institutions or the Child Welfare Committees to the administration/
police for escorting the children back to their natal homes or to
children’s institutions in their home states, but action for sending such
children back has not been taken, the period of pendency of the
request and the reasons for the failure and delay. We would also like to
be informed about the number of children in the homes, whose
father's/guardian's addresses have been located but they are not being
restored to their parents and the reasons in each case.
10. Also in a casual manner it has been mentioned in the counter
affidavit that a website by the name: http:mahilakalyan.up.nic.in has been
set up, where particulars regarding children housed in the institutions
may be entered, but no information has been furnished regarding the
extent to which our direction that photographs and other information
regarding the children be placed on the website has been complied
with. For uploading the information permission may be taken of the
Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) as provided under the proviso to
section 21(1) of the JJ Act. We would like to have information in this
regard from the Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development
and the Director NIC, U.P. or UPDESCO (whichever agency has been
entrusted with this task), and the reasons for the failure, if any in

4. uploading the said information.
11.We also find that the steps required for education of the children
who are languishing in the children’s institutions for long periods have
not been mentioned. No doubt the affidavit mentions that the help of
the N.G.O. “Pratham” is to be taken for providing training to the
teachers so that the learning levels of the children could be assessed
and the teaching skills of teachers improved, but we do not think that
any steps have been taken by the authorities to ensure the compliance
of the direction. We would like to be furnished with the status report
regarding the steps being taken for improving education levels of the
children in the homes. It may be mentioned that on random inspections
to the State run children's homes at Varanasi, Allahabad, Lucknow by
one of us (Hon'ble Amar Saran J) as a member of the High Court
Committee for monitoring the children's/ juvenile homes and for
implementation of the JJ Act, we have been shocked by the abysmally
low level of education gained by such children who had been in the
home for prolonged periods of time and were taught by government
teachers. This was in stark contrast to the level of learning acquired by
children in some private or missionary run children's homes, despite
the limited number of staff and teachers in these private homes.
12. We are also disappointed that the Union Ministry of Child and
Social Welfare and the National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights have not cared to file any affidavit of compliance to our order
dated 14.2.2012 especially with regard to our direction seeking a report
regarding the progress made in creating a website of children present
in children’s homes in various districts all over the country and for up-
loading their photographs on the website so that parents/guardians
could be aided in locating missing children in case they are in any
government or licensed children’s institution run by a voluntary
organization, within or outside the State. We also think that the website
should be interlinked with websites maintained by different States or by
private/ voluntary organizations. We would also like to be furnished
with a progress report on this issue also on the next listing.
13.Care and conditions of children in homes can be improved, if the
quality of the superintendents/ wardens/ in-charges of the institutions
are improved, who occupy the crucial post in the institution, and on
whom the welfare of the children is primarily based. We would like to
know what steps are being taken for improving the quality of the
superintendents/ in-charges of the homes on the next listing. What

5. steps have been taken for punishing defaulting superintendents, where
children are not safe or being properly looked after, or fed, or clothed or
educated. In random inspections by one of us (Hon'ble Amar Saran J)
to various government and private run homes for children (boys or
girls) in Allahabad, Gorakhpur, Ayodhya (Faizabad), Sultanpur,
Lucknow we find that in the homes where the superintendents or the
home in-charges are hard working and take personal interest in
individual children/ juveniles, the children/ juveniles are much happier
and well-adjusted, compared even to homes with better infrastructure,
staff structure and funding support, where the home in-charges were
insensitive, uncaring for children and not hard working, and where they
tried to pass off their responsibilities to inferior Class 4 staff or other
persons.
14.We would also like to be informed whether the various children's
institutions in different districts are being monitored by respectable
independent persons or groups in society, and the extent to which
Inspection Committees required to be set up under section 35 of the JJ
Act consisting of representatives of the State government, Child
Welfare Committee, voluntary organisations and medical experts and
social workers have been constituted in all the districts.
15.The Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development shall also
inform this Court on the next listing as to whether the Child Protection
Units consisting of officers as appointed by the State government to
take up matters of children in need of care and protection and juveniles
in conflict with law and for ensuring implementation of the JJ Act,
including establishment and maintenance of homes, notifying
competent authorities for these children, and for their rehabilitation and
co-ordination with various official and non-official agencies required to
be set up under section 62 A of the JJ Act have been constituted at the
State and district levels in all districts. In case this exercise has not
been started or completed, the time period by which this statutory
requirement will be fulfilled should be indicated.
16. List this case again on 23.4.2012.
17. On that date we require the presence of the Chief Probation
Officer or other Senior Officer of the Secretariat of Women and Child
Development, Lucknow, Juvenile/Child Welfare Officer, Varanasi,
Senior Officer under the Additional Director General of Police (Crime)
or (Headquarters) monitoring the Juvenile Police Units and Juvenile/
Child Welfare Officers in various districts, a representative of NIC, U.P.

6. or other agency such as UPDESCO, (in case it is involved in uploading
information relating to children in institutions), and a Senior Officer of
the Union Ministry of Social Welfare, Union of India. They should
inform the Court about the steps taken for compliance of the order
dated 14.2.2012 and the directions hereinabove mentioned in the
present order.
18.Copy of the order be given to Sri Sanjeev Singh, Amicus Curiae,
and the learned A.G.A. and also to the Counsel for Union of India by
10.4.2012. Copy of the order be forwarded to the aforesaid authorities
forthwith for compliance.
Order date :- 4.4.2012
S.B.