[2017] 4 S.C.R. 625 RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN lN ORPHANAGES lN THE A STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. UNION OF lNDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.102 of2007) B MAY05,2017 (MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: s.2(14) - Children in need of care and protection - Who is a C child in need of care and protection - The provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) do not provide any definition of a child in need of care and protection - A child victim of sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment is a child in need of care and protection - Similarly, a cliild accused Dofan offence and brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or any other authority might also be a child in need of care and protection - Although a child in need of care and protection is defined in. s.2(14) of the JJ Act, 2015, the definition does not specifically include some categories of children - Consequently, since f/;e JJ Act is intended for the benefit of children and is intended to protect E and foster their rights, the definition of a child in need of care and protection has to be given a broad interpretation - It must also include victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment under the POCSO Act as also victims of child trafficking

- Such children must also be given protection under the provisions F of the JJ Act being victims of crime under the POCSO Act an(i the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Child abuse -Trafficking of children. G s.41 - Child care institµtions - Shelter Homes - Children in need of care and protection are given shelter in homes thm are managed by the State Government or by_NGOs or by voluntary organizations - s.41 of the JJ Act which mandates, notwithstanding H 625 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ''"'': 7] 4 S.C.R.

A anything contained in.any other law/or the time being in force, that all institutions, whether run by a State Government or by voluntary organizations or NGOs which are meant, either wholly or partially, for housing children in need of care and protection shall be registered under the JJ Act in such manner as •nay be B prescribed within six months of the commencement of the said Act -The JJ Act came into force on 15'h January, 2016 but the process of registration is not yet complete - The Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories are directed to complete the process of registration of all child care institutions by 31-'' December, 2017 with the entire data being confirmed and C validated - The registration process should also include a data base of all children in need of care and protection which should be updated every month - While maintaining the database, issues of confidentiality and.privacy must be kept in mind by the concerned authorities - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) D Model Rules, 2016 - r.21.

Minimum Standards of care and protection of children -Art.3(3) of the CRC specifically obligates the State Parties te ensure that institutions responsible for care and protection of children shall conform to standards laid down by competent authorities, particularly in areas of safety, health, staff and supervision -E However, the minimum standards of care prescribed for institutions cannot be ensured if the child care institution is not identified and regist'!red - The Model Rules deal with the staffing pattern of child care institutions, physical infrastructure, clothing, bedding, toiletries and other articles, sanitation and hygiene, daily routine, nutrition F and diet scale, medical health, mental health, education, vocational and recreational facilities and genuine efforts in the rehabilitation and re-integration of such children into society - All these requirements are rendered unenforceable in the absence of registration of child care institutions - If the officers of the State do not ensure that minimum standards of care are followed in the child G care institutions, they could well be guilty of negligence - The Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories are directed to enforce the minimum standards of care as required by and in terms of the JJ Act and the Model Rules positively on or before 31'' December, 2017 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 627

STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA of Children) Mode/Rules, 2016 - Convention on the Rights of the A Child (CRC) - Art.3(3). Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307 : (2005) 6 SCC 1 - relied on. Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence lO'h Edition B (2001) - referred to. Utilization of grants - It is the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure that for safeguarding and fostering the rights of children, adequate funds are available particularly for children who are in need of care and protection - Problem is the absence of a will to gainfully utilize the available grants - The State cannot C conflate non-availability of funds to shirk their obligations with inefficient utilization of grants - The 'governments of the States an<j Union Territories are directed to draw up plans for full and proper utilization of grants (along with expenditure statemf!nts) given by the Union Government under the Integrated C,hild Protection D Scheme.

National and State Commissions - Establishment of - The CPCR Act provides for the constitution of a National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and for the constitution of · State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) - These E Commissions are intended to function under the provisions of the CPCR Act - In the implementation of the POCSO Act, the NCPCR and the SCPCR play vital role - s.44 of the POCSO Act places a great burden on the shoulders of the NCPCR and the SCPCRs - It is imperative that the NCPCR and the SCPCR be allowed to function in terms of the CPCR Act and the POCSO Act and only for the F benefit of children - These Commissions are under an obligation to take action wherever necessary including approaching the Constitutional Courts wherever necessary - These Commissions are under an obligation to prepare annual reports and if necessary special reports but it has been pointed out that this requirement has G hardly been implemented mainly because of a lack of interest that these Commissions have shown in functioning under the statute and also partly because of the large number of vacancies in these Commissions - Wherever the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has not been established or though established is not H

A fully functional in the absence of a Chairperson or any one or more Members, the governments of the States and Union Tei ritories must ensure that all vacancies are filled up with dedicated persons on or before 31'' December, 2017 - The SCPCRs so constituted must publish an Annual Report so that everyone is aware of their activities and can contribute individual(y or collectively for the B benefit of children in need of care and protection - Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.

ss.53, 54 - Rehabilitation and social re-integration - With regard to the ji1ture of children in need of care and protection, the c JJ Act contains obligatory provisions such as s.53 which deals with rehabilitation and social re-integration services in child care institutions - This provision requires the State to take care of the basic requirements of children in such institutions including children with special needs, legal aid where required and more importantly ·assistance in obtaining proof of identity - Proof of identify is crucial D for the welfare of the child, otherwise he or she is reduced to a mere ,statistic - The provision for rehabilitation and re-integration services has several facets and cannot be read in isolation but must be read, inter alia, in conjunction with s.54 of the JJ Act which requires the inspection of child care institutions registered under the said Act -Inspection Committees are required to be set up which shall E mandatorily visit all facilities housing children in the area allocated, at least once in three months in a team of not less than three members, of whom at least one shall be a woman and one shall be a medical officer - It is imperative that the Union Government and the ;governments of the States and Union Territories must concentrate F on rehabilitation and social re-integration of children in need of care and protection - There are several schemes of the Government of India including skill development, vocational training etr: which must be taken advantage of keeping in mind the need to rehabilitate such children.

G Individual child care plans - The preparation of individual child care plans is extremely important and all governments of the States and Union Territories must ensure that there is a child care plan in place for every1 child in each child care institution - While this process may appear to be long drawn and cumbersGme, its necessity cannot be underestimated in any circumstances - The H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 629 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA process of preparing individual child care plans is a continuing A process and must be initiated immediately and an individual child care plan must be prepared for each child in each child care institutions on or before 31" December. 2017.

Training of personnel - r.89 of the Model Rules concerns itself with training of personnel dealing with children - This rule B provides for a minimum period of 15 days training to various categories of personnel under the JJ Act including the staff of Children s Courts, Principal Magistrates and Members of Juvenile Justice Boards, Chairpersons and Members of Child Welfare Committies, Police Officers including persons in charge of child ccare institutions etc. - r.89 of the Model Rules also postulates that the Judicial Academy and the Police Academy in the States as well as the State Legal Services Authorities prepare appropriate training modules, training manuals and provide training to personnel -Untrained or inadequately trained personnel can unwittingly play havoc with the lives of victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault or D sexual harassment - There are an adequate number of academies that can take up this task including police academies and judicial academies in the States - There are also national level bodies that can assist in this process of training including bodies like the Bureau of Police Research and Training, the National Judicial Academy Eand others including established NGOs - Wherever pos!:ible training modules should be prepared at the earliest-Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 - r.89.

ss. 44, 45 - De-institutionalization - Art.20 of the CRC obligates the State Parties to provide special protection and Fassistance to children temporarily or permanently deprived offamily environment - Art.20 illustrates alternate care in the form of foster placement, adoption "or if necessary placement In suitable institution" - It is clear that the first option exercised by the authorities should not be institutionalization of a child in need of care and protection and the same is a measure of the last resqrt - G Art.40(4) of the CRC pertaining to children accused of violating the law also states that the State Parties shall ensure "care, guidance, supervision, counseling, probation, foster care. education and vocational training and other alternatives to institutional care" -Indeed, in keeping witli the spirit of the CRC, the JJ Act itself H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A encourages alternatives to institutionalization such as adoption (Chapter VIIJ).foster care (s.44) and Sponsorship (s.45) - The Union Government has since framed the Adoption Regulations, 2017 as well as the Model Guidelines for Foster Care, 2016 - These need to be implemented by all concerned including the Courts, particularly those dealing with issues of adoption - However, training in the B understanding and appreciation of the JJ Act, the Model Rules, Regulations and Guidelines is imperative and merely handing over copies of these documents to the concerned personnel even if they are judicial officers or police officers or government functionaries is not enough - It is not necessary that every child in need of care C and protection must be placed in a child care institutions -Alternatives such as adoption and foster care need to be seriously considered by the concerned authorities - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Arts.20, 40.

Juvenile Justice Committee -High Courts have a constitutional D obligation to ensure that the rights of all citizens, including children, as guaranteed under the Constitution are preserved, protected and respected - With this in mind, all the High Courts have since set up a Juvenile Justice Committee consisting of Judges of the High Court and these Committees ensure that the provisions of the .4ct are implemented in letter and spirit - It is equally the obligation of the E concerned officials of the State, including the police, to render all assistance to each Juvenile Justice Committee to ensure that the goals envisaged by the JJ Act and the constitutional vision. are successfully achieved in the shortest possible time - The governments of the States and Union Territories are directed to set up Inspection p Committees as required by the JJ Act and the Model Rules to conduct regular inspections of child care institutions and to prepare reports of such inspections so that the living conditions of children fn these institutions undergo positive changes - These Inspection Committees should be constituted on or before 31" July, 2017 and they should conduct the first inspection of the child care institutions G in their jurisdiction and submit a report to the concerned government of the States and Union Territories on or before 31'' December, 2017 - While the Juvenile Justice Committee in each High Court is" performing its role in ensuring the implementation of the JJ Act and Model Rules, each Committee would require a small Secretariat by H'

RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 631 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA way of assistance - Juvenile Justice· Committee to seriously consider A establishing a Secretariat for its assistance - Each State Government and Union Territory is directed to render assistance to the Juvenile Justice Committee of each High Court and to cooperate-and collaborate with the Juvenile Justice Committee in this regard. Social audit - Necessity of - Held: For the purpos'e of B ensuring that the implementation of the JJ Act is proceeding in the right direction, it is necessary that a social audit be conducted every year - The requirement of a social audit is necessary not onl7 for purposes of introspection but also transparency and accountability in the effective implementation of the JJ Act - There cannot be any reason to avoid conducting social audits, more particularly since C they have been encouraged by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural · Employment Guarantee Act, 20,05 as well as by the Integrated Child Protection Scheme, by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India a_nd the National Food Security Act, 2013 - It is imperative that the process of conducting a social audit must be taken up in right D earnestness by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights as well as by each State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights.

Technology and computers - Maintenance of records of child care i-nstitutions - There is no data base of all the child care E institu(ions in the country - State Governments have not even validated the available data or undertaken the mapping of child care ins:itutions in collaboration with the Union Government -This is an essential first step since it is difficult to imagine how children in .child care institutions can be cared for. if there is no Frecord of the number of institutions, number of children in such institutions, relevant information regarding the children etc. -Therefore, technology can be put to good use for collection, revision and access of records of children in need of care and protection and the child care institutions - lt is imperative for the Union Government as well as the State Governments to make out a complete G list of all child care institutions along with their addresses and the person in charge or the principal officer as well as full details of the children residing in these child care institutions - Availability of all this information is possible only with the use of technology and a massive computerization program - Similady, for the effective H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A functioning of the Juvenile Justice Boards as well as the Child Welfare Committees, it is necessary that they should be equipped with computers and printers along with uninterrupted power supply units so that their day to day functioning can be taken care of Interpretation of statutes - Beneficial legislation ::uch as B Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -Interpretation of - Held: Beneficial legislations demand an expansive view to be taken by the Courts and all concerned - Jn order to prevent injustice or to promote justice and to effectuate the object and purpose of the welfare legislation, broad interpretation C should be given, even if it requires a departure from literal construction - The definition of a child in need of care and protection given in s.2(14) of the JJ Act should be given a broad and purposeful interpretation - It ought not to be treated as exhaustive but illustrative and furthering the requirements of social justice -Juve11ile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -D s.2(14). Workmen v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation (1985) 4 SCC 71; Regional Director, ES! Corporation. v. Francis De Costa [1992) 3 SCR 23 : 1993 Supp (4) sec 100; MSR E Leathers v. S. Palaniappan [2012) 9 SCR 165 : (2013) 1 SCC 177; Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [2013) 10 SCR 259 : (2014) 1 SCC 188; Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen [2017) 1 SCR 158 : (2017) 2 SCC 629 - relied on.

F Constitution of India - Art.39(j) - Though the D!rective Principles of State Policy are fundamental to the governance of the country, they are not enforceable - However, once a directive principle is enforced through law, the State must be obligated to enforce the statute to uphold its constitutional obligation - JJ Act is G a medium for the State to honour the Directive Principles of State Policy particularly under Art. 39(/) of the Constitution by giving opportunities to children to develop in a healthy manner. and in conditions of freedom and dignity - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 633 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [1984) 2 A SCR 67 : (1984) 3 SCC 161 - relied on. Convention on the Rights of the Child: Art.19- lndia acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on the 11th December, 1992 -Art.19 of the CRC obligates the State Parties to "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and B educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, irijury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse - Trafficking of children - Child abuse. Case Law Reference c [1984] 2 SCR 67 relied on Para 13 (1985) 4 sec 11 relied on Para 19 [1992) 3 SCR 23 relied on Para 20 D [2012) 9 SCR 165 relied on Para 21 [2013) 10 SCR 259 relied on Para 21

[2017) 1 SCR 158 relied on Para 21 E[2005) 2 Suppl. SCR 307 relied on Para 31 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 102 of2007. Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. F Maninder Singh, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, Basant R, Sr. Advs, Purushaindra Kaurav, AAG, Ms. Aparna Bhat (A. C.), Ms. Joshita Pai, Mayank_Sapra, K. Parameshwar, Meenesh Kr. Dubey, Ms. Rashrni Malhotra, B. K. Prasad, S. A. Haseeb, Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, G. S. Makker, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Mukul Singh, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Munmun Goswami, Rohit Rao N, Mukund P. lJnny, G Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ashok K. Srivastava, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Prateek Rusia, Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, C. D. Siiigh, Raghenth Basant, Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, Misha! Johari, Advs. for the appearing parties. H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. Jhis writ petition was taken up on the basis of an article published in the Hindi newspaper "Hindustan" (Lucknow Edition) on 4'hJuly, 2007. The article was written by Ms.Anjali Sinha and the translated caption of the article is "Orphanage or Places B for Child Abuse". The article was forwarded to this Court by one A.S. Choudhury along with a letter and that is the genesis of this petition which was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on lO'h Septe:nber, 2007. Ms. Apama Bhat was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. At the outset we must and do acknowledge the unstinting and excellent efforts put in by Ms. Apama Bhat over the last I 0 years in C rendering assistance in this matter. 2. Broadly, the article written by Ms. Anjali Sinha mentions that orpha:iages in Mahabalipuram in Tamil Nadu, run by NGOs as well as government institutions were reportedly involved in systematic sexual abuse of children. A sting operation indicated that sexual services of D children were being provided to foreigners as well as Indian tourists and that the rates of children whose sexual services were being taken were fixed over telephone or in a meeting at the orphanage.

3. It is further stated that in a program organized by the State Commission for Women in Tamil Nadu, representatives of the National E Commission for Women participated and it was acknowledged that government schools have become unsafe for girl students due to sexual abuse. The incident of an eight year old girl who was harassed by her Principal was mentioned and it was noted that the Principal was only transferred out by way of punishment. Another incident was mentioned F where the school teacher misbehaved with students in the presence of other atudents in a closed room. 4. The then Ministry of Family and Child Welfare along with UNICEF brought out a report on the condition of children in which it was reported that 53% of children suffered from sexual abuse. Children G were reported to be the subject of institutional abuse as well as by relatives. 5. On these broad facts Ms. Anjali Sinha suggested \hat the problem of sexual abuse of children especially in government institutions has become a.serious problem and requires immediate redressal. She H made some suggestions including a Counseling Cell in each school where RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 635 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] children are taught how to recognize abuse and providing a complaint A mechanism .accessible to children in case of any such incident. Proceedings in this Court

6. Over the years, this Court passed several orders and also mentioned that certain other issues such as trafficking of children, schools being occupied by Central Para Military Forces and the right to education B guaranteed to children require consideration. Jn other words, this Court sought to expand the scope of this PIL to include the rights of children in general. 7. In an order passed on 7'h February, 2013 the learned Addit;onal Solicitor General and the learnedAmicus submitted that the main reason C for this Court issuing various orders is to ensure that the provisions for the rights of children as well as provisions for proper facilities to children in education as also health are implemented. It was submitted that obviously the rights of children can be adequately secured only if the monitoring and controlling provisions contained in statutes relating to D children such as The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are fully implemented. E

8. A detailed order was passed by this Court on ! 6'h December, 2013 lamenting that despite the directions issued, little or no progress . was made by the States in protecting the rights of children. As far as the Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights are concerned, they exist only on paper since in some cases the Chairperson had not oeen appointed or the Members had not been appointed or no rules and . F regulations had been framed. This Court observed that the lackadaisical manner in which the States and the Union Territories had responded to the rights of children made it necessary to draw attention to the constittitional rights guaranteed to children. It was observed tha~ the inaction of the States was in the teeth of the directions given by this G Court and additionally the States and Union Territories ought to realize that they have to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, specific information was sought from each State and Union Territory regarding efforts made by the respective H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A governments. Affidavits were filed by the States and Union Territories from time to time as an attempt to respond to the questions raised by this Court regarding action taken by the concerned governments in protecting the rights of children as well as implementation of the statutes mentioned above. The responses were disheartening then and the situation has not B changed substantially even after almost a decade since this Court took cognizance of the matter. Progress, if any, has been marginal. Unfortunately, it appears that the governments of some of the States and Union Territories have little remedial or pro-active con~ern for children. 10. On 201hMarch, 2015 this Court raised the need for a social c audit in terms of Rule 64 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and the utilization offunds given to the States and Union Territories under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme. 11. On l 7'h April, 2015 this Court raised the issue of a concurrent monitoring audit under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme as well D as the establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Welfare Committees, Special Juvenile Police Units, functioning of Child Care Institutions and functioning of adoption agencies.

12. On 3l"July, 2015 at the instance of the learned Amicus, the issue of formulating Child Care Plans was discussed in addition fo laying E down a policy for conducting social audits. On 28'h August, 2015, the issue of vacancies in the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights was raised by this Court. On 30'hOctober, 2015 the format for social audits was discussed, in the context of finalizing something workable and pragmatic. F 13. Since it appeared that there was a lack of seriousness and more tragically a lack of empathy towards the well being and welfare of children amongst some of the States and Union Territories and c:implete apathy with respect to the disturbingly increasing instances of child sexual abuse, often by someone in a position of authority and ineffective G implementation of the laws passed by Parliament virtually making parliamentary legislation irrelevant, we heard detailed submissions of all the parties with the intention of passing appropriate directions so as to ensure the meaningful implementation·ofthe statutes already enacted by Parliament. It must be appreciated that the Juvenile Justice '(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is a medium for the State to honour H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 637 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

the Directive Principles of State Policy particularly under Article 39(£) A of the Constitution by giving opportunities to children to develop in a h1:althy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. Indeed, though the Directive Principles of State Policy are fundamental to the governance of the country, they are not enforceable However, as held in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, once a directive principle is enforced B through law the State must be obligated to enforce the statute to uphold its constitutional obligation. 1 · 14. In this context, it is pertinent to note that India acceded to the . Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on the 11th December, 1992. Article 19 of the CRC obligates the State Parties to "take all C appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, ir.jury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse .... " 15. Keeping all this in mind, the learnedAmicus focused on'three principal issues namely ( 1) Children in need of care and protection; {2) D Traffickrd children (3) Street children. We do not propose to con:;ider the plight of trafficked or street children, since that would mean losing focus on the issues raised by Ms. Anjali Sinha. We leave open the issues of trafficked children and street children for consideration in an appropriate case. E

16. On the rights of children in need of care and protection it was submitted that issues relating to child care institutions whether managed by the State Government or by NGOs or other voluntary organizations need to follow certain minimum standards .of care and in addition, rehabilitation of such children must be a priority. F Children in need of care and protection 17. Who is a child in need of care and protection? The provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the 'POCSO Act') do not provide any definition of a child in need of care and protection. But no one can deny that a child victim of sexual G abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment is a child in need of care and protection. Similarly in a given case,a child accused of an offence and brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or any other authority might also be a child in need of care and protection. 1 (1984) 3 sec 161 H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R.

A 18. Even though a child in need of care and protection is defined in Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the JJ Act) the definition does not specifically include some categories of children. Consequently, we are of the view that since the JJ Act is intended for the benefit of children and is intended to protect and foster their rights, the definition of a child B in need of care and protection must be given a broad interpretation. It would be unfortunate if certain categories of children are left out of the definition, even though they need as much care and protection as categories of children specifically enlisted in the definition, Beneficial legislations of the kind that we are dealing with demand an expansive C view to be taken by the Courts and all concerned. 19. In Workmen v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation2 this Court held in paragraph 4 of the Report that: "The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words D occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights' legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian dimensions. In construing'· these legislations the imposture of literal construction :nust be avoided and the prodigality ofits misapplication must be recognised and reduced." E 20. A similar view was expressed in Regional Director, ES!

Corporation. v. Francis De Costa3 when it was observed that "It is , settled law that to prevent injustice or to promote justice and to effectuate the object and purpose of the welfare legislation, broad interpretation should be given, even ifit requires a.departure from literal construction." F 21. The necessity of giving a purposeful interpretation to a provision in a statute was recognized in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan4 when this Court observed that: " ..... one of the salutary principles of interpretation of statutes is to adopt an interpretation which promotes and advances the object G sought to be achieved by the legislation, in preference to an interpretation which defeats such object. This Court has in a Jong line of decisions recognised purposive interpretation as a sound 2 {1985)4SCC71 '1993 Supp (4) sec 100 H • (2013) 1 sec 177 . RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 639 STATE .OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] principle for the courts to adopt while interpreting statutory A provisions." A similar' view was expressed, though in a different context, in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse.5 A far more detailed discussion or. the subject is to be found in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen.6 B

22. Read in this light, the definition of a child in need of care and protection given in Section 2(14) of the JJ Act should be given a broad and purposeful interpretation - it ought not to be treated as exhaustive but illustrative and furthering the requirements of social justice. This understanding would also be in consonance with Article 40 of the CRC c which stipulates that the "State Parties shall recognize rights of every child accused of an offence and treatment of such a child shall be in a manner consistent with promotion of the child's dignity and worth".

23. LeamedAmicus drew our attention to decisions rendered by some High Courts which have taken a broad based approach to the D meaning of a child in need of care and protection and some other High Courts that have adopted a comparatively narrow interpretation. These decisions were rendered in the context of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 and would not really be applicable insofar as the JJ Act is concerned. However, this does not detract from her submission that a child in need of care and protection must be given a wider meaning E and in addition to some children in conflict with law as discussed above, it must also include victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment under the POCSO Act as also victims of child trafficking. Such children must also be given protection under the provisions of the JJ Act being victims of crime under the POCSO Act and the Immoral F Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Child care institutions 24. Children in need of care and protection are given shelter in homes that are managed by the State Government or by NGOs ur by voluntary organizations. In this context, it is necessary to draw attention G to Section 41 of the JJ Act which mandates, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, that all institutions, '(2014) 1sec188 • <2011) 2 sec 629 H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R.

A whether run by a State Government or by voluntary organizations or NGOs which are meant, either wholly or partially, for housing children in need of care and protection shall be registered under the JJ Act in such manner as may be prescribed within six months of the commencement of the said Act. The JJ Act came into force on l S1h January, 2016 but we B were informed that the process of registration is underway and not yet complete. 25. In this day and age when high quality technology is avaiiable and thre is no shortage of manpower in the country we are uaable to appreciate why the provisions of Section 41 of JJ Act have not yet been fully implemented particularly as regards registration of child care c institutions. It is virtually impossible to find out what is going on within its four walls. The article by Ms. Anjali Sinha is a prime example of what can happen in child care institutions. It is not clear from the article .whether all the institutions referred to were registered or not, but surely the government run institutions must have been registered or licensed. D Therefore, if activities of the nature mentioned by Ms. Anjali Sinha in her article are carried out in government run institutions, one can only imagine what possibly can go wrong in unregistered institutions, which are managed beyond the law.

26. Apart from their registration, the statute requires quite a few E salutary actions to be taken by such institutions including recording the residential capacity and purpose of the child care institt1tion. Rule 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Model Rules) specifies the manner of registration of child care institutions and provides, inter alia, the availability of the bye-laws and memorandum of association, office F bearers etc. of such institutions. The State Government is obligated to consider an application for registration ofa child care institution (in Form 27) iP- light of aspects like whether provision exists for the care and protection of children, their health, education, boarding and lodging facilities, vocational studies and rehabilitation (among others things). It G is only then that a certificate of registration can be issued. The State Government is also obligated to conduct an inspection of an applicant institution and it appears to us that if such an inspection is faithfully and sincerely carried out, it will reveal the dark underbelly, if any, of a dubious child care institution such as those referred to by Ms. Anjali Si11ha. The H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 641 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

strict implementation of the provisions of the JJ Act will go a long way in A making the life of children in such child care institutions safer and far more comfortable than it has been and also reduce the possibility of crimes such as trafficking, sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment of children. If the registration of child care institutions is not complete, their management obviously cannot be supervised. Therefore, B a misstep in the very first stage could have a chain reaction and perhaps disastrous consequences in some cases as is evident from the incidents of cliild abuse in institutions as brought out by Ms. Anjali Sinha. Minimum Standards of care 27. Article 3 of the CRC mandates that all actions concerning c children undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, c0urts oflaw, administrative authorities or legislative bodies shall have the best interest of the children as a primary consideration. Article 3(3) of the CRC specifically obligates the State Parties to ensure that institutions responsible for care and protection of children shall conform to standards laid down by competent authorities, particularly in areas of safety, health, D staff and supervision. However, the minimum standards of care prescribed for institutions cannot be ensured if the child care institution if not identified and registered.

28. In this regard it is necessary to draw attention to the provisions of Chapter VI of the Model Rules particularly the series of rules starting E from Rule 26 onwards. Amongst other things, these Rules deal with the staffing plttern of child care institutions, physical infras~ructure, clo6ing, bedding, toiletries and other articles, sanitation and hygiene, daily routine, nutrition and diet scale, medical health, mental health, education, vocational and recreational facilities and genuine efforts in the rehabilitation and F re-integration of such children into society. All these requirements are rendered unenforceable in the absence of registration of child care institutions. 2<;. The Integrated Child Protection Scheme, which also concerns itself with the minimum standards of care in child care institutions, refers G to several of these requirements and also draws attention to the rehabilitation programme of children and their recreation. The minimum standards of care prescribed for child care institutions must be adhered to in letter and spirit and not only on paper. H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 4 S.C.R. A 30. We have been given to understand by the learnedAmicus that unfortunately, even in registered child care institutions, many of the statutory facilities and requirements are missing. If that be so, we can only imagine the living conditions of children in unregistered institutions.

31. In a given case, failure to maintain a basic or minimum standard B of care can be actionable as negligence. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Pu11jab1 this Court cited Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence8 and held that the essential components of negligence are: ( 1) the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant; (2) the failure to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, C thereby committing a breach of such duty; and (3) damage, which is both causally connected with such breach and recognized by <he law, has been suffered by the complainant. Effectively therefore, if the officers of the State do not ensure that minimum standards of care are followed in the child care institutions, they could well be guilty of negligence. Since ours is a welfare State it would be diffi~ult for uncaring officers to D absolve themselves of a charge of negligence and also perhaps of a violation of the human rights of children. Utilization of grants

32. During the course of hearing, we found that many oftht: Model Rules though workable and beneficial, exist only on paper and.there has E been no serious attempt to implement the provisions or the requirements under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme. One of the concerns that kept coming up as an excuse for non-implementation offhe Rules was a so-called shortage of funds. We are surprised that such an excuse.was advanced even though a large amount allocated towards child welfare is F lying unspent. · 33. Really therefore, the problem is not a lack of funds but the absence of a will to gainfully utilize the available grants. In this context, learned Amicus brought to our notice by way of an example, the statement of expenditure under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme for the G year 2013-14. This indicates that the unspent grant is over Rs.3000 lakhs. (This figure does not include unspent amounts by the State of Andhra · Pradesh and the State ofUttarakhand). Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a shortage of funds. The chart brought on record is as follows:-' c2oos) 6 sec 1 H ' I 0'" Edition (200 I) . RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 643 STATE OFT. N; v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] -... ) A Year-wise details of unspent grants SI. No. Name of the State Unspent (Amount in Lakhs) B 2013-14 I Andhra Pradesh 2999.28* 2 Arunachal Pradesh 147.05 3 ·Assam 148.47 c 4 Bihar 442.14 5 Chhattisgarh 0.00 6 Goa - D 7 Gujarat 545.23

8 Haryana 2.38.92 9 Himachal Pradesh 138.10 IO Jammu & Kashmir - E 11 Jharkhand 147.21 12 ·Karnataka 57.94 13 Kera la 291.52 F ; 14 Madhya Pradesh I 084.67 15 Maharashtra 0.00 ' G 16 Manipur 473.13 17 Meghalaya 0.00 18 Mizoram 0.00 H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A 19 Nagaland 0.00 20 Orissa 2.63 21 Punjab 749.37 B 22 Rajasthan 253.33 23 Sikkim 50.36 c 24 Tamil Nadu 589.22 25 Tripura 0.00 26 Uttar Pradesh 99.92 D 27 Uttarakhand 333.92* 28 West Bengal 268.95 29 Andaman & Nicobar Island - E 30 Chandigarh 25.17 31 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 9.63 F 32 Daman & Diu 58.63 33 Delhi 676.68 34 Lakshadweep - G 35 Puducherry - Total 6498.27 H * States have not submitted their Statement of Expenditure (SOE) RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 645 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.} We are told that the same situation continued for subsequent years as A well. · 34. No doubt, it is the consti~tional obligation of the State to ensure that for safeguarding and fostering the rights of children, adequate funds are available particularly for children who are in need of care and protection. The State cannot conflate non-availability of funds to shirk B their obligations with inefficient utilization of grants. We are pained that such an excuse is being trotted out. National and State Commissions

35. Parliament has, of course, appreciated the need for prote..:ting the rights of children in many of the ways that we have mentioned above C and that is why the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 was enacted. In fact the Preamble to the said Act is extremely significant and brings into focus not only the necessity of protecting the rights of children generally but also as a part of our obligations to the international community. The Preamble to the Commissions for Protection D of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPCR Act') reads as follows: "An Act to provide for the constitution of a National Commission and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights and Children s Courts for providing speedy trial of E offences against children or of violation of child rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS India participated in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly Summit in 1990, which adopted a Declaratio:i on Survival, Protection and Development of Children; F AND WHEREAS India has also acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on the 11th December, 1992;

AND WHEREAS CRC is an international treaty that makes it incumbent upon the signatory States to take all necessary steps to protect children's rights enumerated in the Convention; G AND WHEREAS in order to ensure protection of rights of children one of the recent initiatives that the Government have taken for Children is the adoption ofNational Charter for Children, 2003; AND WHEREAS the UN General Assembly Special Session on H 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A Children held in May 2002 adopted an Outcome Document titled "A World Fit for Children" containing the goals, objectives, strategies and activities to be undertaken by the member countries for the current decade; AND WHEREAS it is expedient to enact a law relating to children B to give effect to the policies adopted by the Government inJhis regard, standards prescribed in the CRC, and all other ;·elevant international instruments;" 36. To fulfill the obligations to children, the CPCRAct provides for the constitution ofa National Commission for Protection of Child c Rights (for short 'the NCPCR') and for the constitution of State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (for short 'the SCPCR'). These Commissions are intended to function under the provisions of the CPCRAct and their vast range of functions has been delineated in Section 13 as well as in Section 24 of the CPCR Act.

D 37. It was pointed out by the learned Amicus that the NCPCR and the SCPCR can play a very crucial role in fosterin& child rights. This deserves to be recognized, but is unfortunately overlooked both by the Union Government as well as by the State Governments. She pointed out that there are a large number of vacancies in many of these bodies and'· in fact the NCP~£ was, at one time, without any Chairperson for E more than a year. Some of the State Governments have also not bothered to fill up the vacancies in the SCPCR and some others have used the SCPCR as a sinecure for some favourites. This again, as pointed out, is nothing but providing lip service to the provisions of a parliamentary legislation and not giving serious attention to the constitutional rights of F children.This is certainly not acceptable . .. ' 38. Similarly, in the implementation of the POCSO Act, the NCPCR and the SCPCR have a vital role to play. As mentioned above, issues of sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment complained of by Ms. Anjali Sinha need attention and Section 44 of the POCSO Act places _ G a great burden on the shoulders of the NCPCR and the SCPCRs. These authorities have an obligation to monitor the implementation of the POCSO Act ac is evident from Section 44 thereof which reads as follows: "44. Monitoring of implementation of Act - (1) The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights constituted under Section 3, or as the case may be, the State Commission for H

RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 647 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] · Protection of Child Rights constituted under Section 17, of the A Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of2006), shall, in addition to the functions assigned to them under that Act, also monitor the implementation of the provisions of this Act in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The National Commission or, as the case may be, the State B C0mmission, referred to in sub-section (1 ), shall, while inquiring into any matter relating to any offence under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in it under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of2006). (3) The National Commission or, as the case may be, the State c Commission, referred to in sub-sectiop. ( 1), shall, also include, its activities under this section, in the annual report referred to in Section 16 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of2006)."

39. In our opinion, it is imperative that the NCPCR and the SCPCR D be allow'!d to function in terms of the CPCR Act and the POCSO Act and only for the benefit of children. These Commissions are under an obligation to take action wherever necessary including approaching the Constitutional Courts wherever necessary. These Commissions are under an obligation to prepare annual reports and if necessary special reports but it has been pointed out that this requirement has hardly been E implemented mainly because of a lack of interest that these Commissions have sho~n in functioning under the statute and also partly because of the large number of vacancies in these Commissions. 40. This is not to suggest that the NCPCR or the SCPCRs are not doing a good job. On the contrary, the NCPCR has oflate begun taking F its statutory obligations quite seriously and there are a few SCPCRs that are also faithfully performing their functions under the relevant statutes. On the other hand, there are some SCPCRs that are not performing well at all or are defunct and headless. It is difficult to appreciate '1ow, under these circumstances, the JJ Act or the POCSO Act can at all be G implemented, let alone implemented effectively. 41. Needless to say, it is obligatory on the part of the Union Government as well as of the State Governments to ensure that the provisions of laws enacted by Parliament are faithfully and sincerely H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A implemented and the statutory Commissions constituted under the provisions of the CPCRAct must be allowed to function as inde~endent statutory bodies under the provisions of the said Act, the POCSO A.ct as well as the JJ Act. 42. The rule oflaw includes adherence to parliamentary legislation B by all concerned including State Governments and the Union Government and it would be extremely unfortunate if the concerned gove:nments voluntarily and knowingly flout the provisions oflaw solemnly enacted by Parliament. We need say nothing more on this subject, except that laws solemnly enacted by Parliament cannot be insulted by putting hurdles C in the effective functioning of these Commissions, such as by not . appointing the Chairperson or Members. Rehabilitation and social re-integration

43. With regard to the future of children in need of care and protection, the JJ Act contains obligatory provisions such as Se<:tion 53 D which deals with rehabilitation and social re-integration services in child care institutions. This provision requires the State to take care of the basic requirements of children in such institutions including children with special needs, legal aid where required and more importantly assistance in obtaining proof of identity. There have been instances brought to our notice where children;particularly in the case of abandoned children, are E unable to give any information about their parentage or permanent address etc. In such cases, proof of identify is crucial for the welfare of the child, otherwise he or she is reduced to a mere statistic.

44. The provision for rehabilitation and re-integration services has several facets and cannot be read in isolation but must be read, inter F alia, in conjunction with Section 54 of the JJ Act which requires the inspection of child care institutions registered under the said Act. Inspection Committees are required to be set up which shall mandatorily visit all facilities housing children in the area allocated, at least once in three months in a team of not less than three members, of whom at least one G shall be a woman and one shall be a medical officer. Their Inspection Reports are required to be furnished to the District Child Protection Unit or the State Government, as the case may be, for further action. Form 46 of the Model Rules prepared under Rule 41 thereof is quite exhaustive and ifthe Form is filled up with due seriousness it will go a long way inl improving the living conditions of children in child care institutions. H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 649 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 45. The importance ofrehabilitation and social re-integration clearly A stands out if we appreciate the objective of the JJ Act which is to foster restorative justice. There cannot be any meaningful rehabilitation. particularly of a child in conflict with law who is also a child in net:d of care and protection unless the basic elements and principles of restorative justice are recognized and practised. B

46. Unfortunately, one of the problems faced in introducing restorative justice is that a child in a child care institution is treated as a num!;wr and no effort is made to introduce any individual child care pliin postulated by Rule 19 of the Model Rules read with Form 7. Learned Amicus informed us that the Form is very rarely filled up (if at all) and little or no attention is paid to the needs of each child including a child in C conflict with law. She submitted that specific directions should be gi~en for the preparation of individual child care plans in every child care institution since that is really the heart of rehabilitation and social re-integration of a child in need of care and protection. Of course, some expertise is involved in this exercise but as we had mentioned earlier, D there is no shortage of manpower in our country and it is only the will of the State Governments, Union Territories and the Union Government which is coming in the way of the effective implementation of the provisions of the JJ Act, Model Rules and filling up various Forms and · their analysis. E Training of personnel

47. One of the more important issues raised by the learned Amicus in the context of rehabilitation and social re-integration is to be found in Rule 89 of the Model Rules which concerns itself with training of personnel dealing with children. This rule provides for a minimum period E of 15 days training to various categories of personnel under the JJ Act including the staff of Children's Courts, Principal Magistrates and Members of Juvenile Justice Boards, Chairpersons and Members of Child Welfare Committees, Police Officers including persons in cJ.iarge of child care institutions etc. Rule 89 of the Model Rules also postulates that the Jtidicial Academy and the Police Academy in the States as well G as the State Legal Services Authorities prepare appropriate training modules, training manuals and provide training to personnel. It was pointed out by the learned Amicus that this rule is being followed more in the breach and there is hardly any Judicial Academy or Police Academy or H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R. A State Legal Services Authority which conducts 15 days training programmes. This is quite unfortunate to say the least.

48. The importance of quality training can best be understood by giving a negative example, which is that unless proper training is imparted to the concerned personnel, it is quite possible that strange practices and B procedures may evolve due to the absence of proper guidance. It has been brought to our notice in cases of adoption of children some extremely unusual and impracticable orders have been passed by the concerned "Courts. It is high time that the High Courts exercise their supervisory jurisdiction and intervene and take appropriate remedial steps. It is also high time that training of personnel be given due importance. We may C note here that it was brought to our attention by the leamedAmicus that untrained or inadequately trained personnel can unwittingly play havoc with the lives of victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault o; sexual harassment. De-institutionalization D

49. In the context ofrehabilitation and social re-integration, it was submitted before us that institutionalization of children is not necessarily the only available option. This submission of the learned Amicus also finds ,;upport in Article 20 of the CRC. The Article obligates the State Parties to provide special protection and assistance to children temporarily E or permariently deprived of family environment. The Article illastrates alternate care in the form of foste.r placement, adoption "or if necessary placement in suitable institution". It is clear that the first option exercised by the authorities should not be institutionalization of a child in need of ·care and protection and the same is a measure of the last resort. Article F 40( 4) of the CRC pertaining to children accused of violating the law also states that the State Parties shall ensure "care, guidance, supervision, counseling, probation, foster care, education and vocational trail".ing and other !llternatives to institutional care". Indeed, in keeping with the spirit ._,.. of the CRC, the JJ Act itself encourages alternatives to institutionalization such as adoption (Chapter VIII), foster care (Section 44) and Sponsorship G (Section 45). This too needs some serious thought, as submitted by the learned Amicus.

50. The learned Additional Solicitor General brought to our notice that the Union Government has since framed the Adoption Regulations, 2017 as well as the Model Guidelines forFosterCare, 2016. These need H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 651 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. -LOKUR, J.] to be implemented by all concerned including the Courts, particularly A those dealing with issues of.adoption. However, as mentioned above, training in the understanding and appreciation of the JJ Act, the MOdel Rules, Regulations and Guidelines is imperative and merely handing over copies of these documents to the concerned personnel even if they are· judicial officers or police officers or government functionaries is not Benough. Some sort of training is absolutely necessary so that the aims and objects of the various statutory provisions enacted for the benefit of children and to foster their rights are implemented in letter and spirit. 51. We must emphasize, at this stage that .it is absolutely necessary for all stakeholders having interest in the welfare of children towork together ctowards a common goal. This teamwork would include not onl~ the government machinery but also the police, civil society and the judiciary. Juvenile Justice Committee

52. That the judiciary is not far behind in fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities is obvious from the fact that the rather slack D implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ofChikiren) Act, 20()!) even after four years of its enactment, compelled the Chief Justice oflndia to request all the High Courts to set up a Juvenile Justice Committ..:e to ensure effective implementation of the said Act and monitor the activities under the said A.ct. The High Courts have a {;Onstitutional obligation to ensure that the rights of all citizens, including children, as E guaranteed under the Constitution are preserved, protected and respected. With this in mind, all the High Courts have since set up a Juvenile Justice Committee consisting of Judges of the High Court and these Committees ensure that the provisions of the Act are implemented in letter and spirit. For bette; co-ordination on issues relating to children, some High Courts F have also provided a Secretariat for the Juvenile Justice Committee.

53. With the passage of time, it has been realized that the importance of the Juvenile Justice Committee in the High Court cannot be overemphasized. It is time for all of us to now realize that judges are no longer required to remain in an ivory tower. Judges of all the Courts G including the Constitutional Couns have non-judicial duties and obligations to perform so that the fundamental rights of the people are respected. It is this realization that led the Constitutional Courts to exercise jurisdiction . in social justice issues through Public Interest Litigation and it is this that requires judges of the Courts to ensure access to justice under the Legal H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A Services Authorities Act, 1986 to indigent people and those who cannot afford legal services due to financial or other constraints. It is very much in keeping with this constitutional obligation and goals that the concern and involvement of each Juvenile Justice Committee in the effective implementation of the Act is an absolute necessity. It is equally the B obligation of the concerned officials of the State, including the police, to render all assistance to each Juvenile Justice Committee to ensure that the goals envisaged by the JJ Act and the constitutional vision are successfully achieved in the shortest possible time . .. Social audit

c · 54. For the purposes of ensuring that the implementaticm of the JJ Act is proceeding in the right direction, it is necessary that a social audit be conducted every year. Social audits give reasons for introspection as well as for improvement jn the services. 55. Social audit has gained relevance as a tool of public D accountability. It has been defined as "an assessment of a department's non financial objectives through systematic and regular monitoring on the basis of the views of its stakeholders. "9 A social audit is considered novel as it is supposed to serve as a supplement to a conventional Government Audit, often done in 12 month cycles generating an audit report every time. 10 In fact, in the Report of the Task Group on Social E Audit by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it was opined that social audit be brought into the mainstream of auditing by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department as an essential process and tool ill all the performance audits of social sector programmes as they afford an opportunity to strengthen the micro level scrutiny of the programme F planning, implementation and monitoring. 11

56. The requirement of a social audit is necessary not only for purposes of introspection but also transparency and accountability in the effective implementation of the JJ Act. There cannot be any reason to avoid conducting social audits, more particularly since they have been G encouraged by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment ' Social Audit: A Toolkit, A Guide for Performance Improvement and Qutoome Measurement available at https://cgg.gov.in/publicationdownloads2a/ Social%20Audit%20Toolkit%20Final.pdf. '"Ibid 11 Report of the Task Group on Social Audit, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor H General oflndia, (2010) at pg 5 • • RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 653 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] · Guarantee Act, 2005 as well as by the Integrated Child Protection A Scheme, by the Comptroller and Auditor General oflndia and the National Food Security Act, 2013. The impression given to us is that for ~ome .inexplicable reason the Union Government is shying away from social audits.

57. In the hearing on l 7'h April, 2015, the learned Additional Solicitor B General informed us that no social audit was carried out despite the rule being notified in 2007. The Union of India was then directed to finalize a policy for conducting social audits. In the hearing on 30'h October, 2015 we were informed that the formats for social audit have been mo~e or less finalized. In its affidavit filed sometime in November2015, the Union of India has annexed copies of Model Social Audit Formats for Child C Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards, Special Juvenile Police Units, Children Homes, Specialized Adoption Agencies, Open Shelter/ Shelter Homes, Observation Homes and Special Homes. It is stated in the affidavit that these formats will be circulated for pilot testing by selected States as mentioned in an earlier affidavit dated 29'h Oct0ber, D 2015. . 58. We have not been informed whether any steps have been taken to conduct social audits in terms of the Model Formats prepared by the Union of India or the result of the pilot testing, if any. It is therefore necessary to ensure that these formats are tested out with urgency so E that the implementation of the JJ Act is made more meaningful. Technology and computers

59. We have been given to understand that there is no data base of all the child care institutions in the country. State Governments have not even validated the available data or undertaken the mapping of child F care institutions in collaboration with the Union Government. This is an essential first step since it is difficult to imagine how children in child care institutions can be cared for if there is no record of the number of institutions, number of children in such institutions, relevant information regarding the children etc. Therefore technology can be put to good use G for collection, revision and access of records of children in need of care and protection and the child care institutions. 60. It is imperative for the Union Government as well as the State Governments to make out a complete list of all child care institutions along with their addresses and the person in charge or the prin.:ipal H ., 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A officer as well as full details of the children residing in these child care institutions. Learned Amicus submitted that all these details, though necessary, are.not available with the Union Government or the NCPCR. Availability of all this information is possible only with the use of technology and a massive computerization program.

B 61. Similarly, for the effective functioning of the Juvenile Justice Boards as well as the Child Welfare Committees, it is necessary that they should be equipped with computers and printers along with uninterrupted power supply units so that their day to day functioning can be taken care of. Learned Amicus pointed out that perhaps this may be asking for too much since she has received complaints to the effect that C very cften stationery is not available with the Child Welfare Committees or the Juvenile Justice Boards and an appropriate requisition has to be made to the State Government or the local authority, which is leisurely processed. In our opinion if this submission were to be accepted it would indicate a very sorry state ofaffairs in which the Juvenile Justice Boards D and the Child Welfare Committees are made to function. This step-child attitude cannot be permitted to continue since these statutory bodies are vital for having necessary supervision over child care institutions within their jurisdiction. Directions E 62. In view of the above discussion, the following directions are issued: 1. The definition of the expression "child in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14) of the JJ Act should not be interpreted as an exhaustive definition. The definition is illustrative and the oenefits F envisaged for children in need of care and protection should be extended to all such children in fact requiring State care and protection.

2. The Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories must ensure that the process of registration of all child care institutions is completed positively by 31" December, 2017 with the G entire data being confirmed and validated. The information should be available with all the concerned officials. The registration process should also include a data base of all children in need of care and protection which should be updated every month. While maintaining the database, issues of confidentiality and privacy must be kept in mind by the concerned authorities. H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 655 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 3. The Union Government and the governments of the States and A Union Territories are directed to enforce the minimum standards of care as requir~d by and in terms of the JJ Act and the Model Rules positively on or before 31" December, 2017. ' · 4. The governments of the States and Union Territories should draw up plans for full and proper utilization of grants (along with B expenditure statements) given by the Union Government unde; the Integrated Child Protection Scheme. Returning the grants as unspent or casual utilization of the grants will not ensure anybody's benefit and is effectively wasteful expenditure.

5. It is imperative that the Union Government and the governments c of the Sates and Union Territories must concentrate on rehabilitation and social re-integration of children in need of care and protection. There are several schemes of the Government of India including skill development, vocational training etc which must be taken advantage of keeping in mind the need to rehabilitate such children. D 6. The governments of the States and Union Territories are directed to set up Inspection Committees as required by the JJ Act and the Model Rules to conduct regular inspections ofchild care institutions and to prepare reports of such inspections so that the living conditions of children in these institutions undergo positive changes. These Inspection Committees should be constituted on or before 31st July, 2017 ai:d they E should conduct the first inspection of the child care institutions in their jurisdiction and submit a report to the concerned government of the States and Union Territories on or before 31st December, 2017.

7. The preparation of individual child care plans is extremely important and all governments of the States and Union Territories '.llust F ensure th!lt there is a child care plan in place for every child in each child care institution. While this process may appear to be long drawn and cumbersome, its necessity cannot be underestimated in any circumstances. The process of preparing individual child care plans is a· continuing process and must be initiated immediately and an individual G child care plan must be prepared for each child in each child care institutions on or before 31st December, 2017. 8. Wherever the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has not been established or though established is not fully functional in the absence of a Chairperson or any one or more Members, the H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R.

A governments of the States and Union Territories must ensure that all vacan.:ies are filled up with dedicated persons on or before 31 "December, 2017. The SCPCRs so constituted must publish an Annual Report so that everyone is aware of their activities and can contribute individually or collectively for the benefit of children in need of care and protection. B 9. The training of personnel as required by the JJ Act and the Model Rules is essential. There are an adequate number of academies that can take up this task including police academies and judicial academies in the States. There are also national level bodies that can assist in this process of training including bodies like the Bureau of Police Research and Training, the National Judicial Academy and others including C established NGOs. Wherever possible training modules should be prepared at the earliest. 10. It is time that the governments of the States and Union Territories consider de-institutionalization as a viable alternative. It is not necessary that every child in need of care and protection must be D placed in a child care institutions. Alternatives such as adoption and foster care need to be seriously considered by the concerned authorities. 11. The importance of social audits cannot be over-emphasized.

The necessity of having a social audit has been felt in some statutes which have been mentioned above and also by the Comptroller and E Auditor General oflndia. That being the position, it is imperative that the process of conducting a social audit must be taken up in right earnestness by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights as well as by each State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights. This is perhaps the best possible method by which transparency· and p accoiintability in the management and functioning of child care institutions and other bodies under the JJ Act and Model Rules can be monitored and supervised. 12. While the Juvenile Justice Committee in each High Court is performing its· role in ensuring the implementation of the JJ Act and G Model Rules, there is no doubt that each Committee will require a small Secretariat by way of assistance. We request each Juvenile Justice Committee to seriously consider establishing a Secretariat for its assistance and we direct each State Government and Union Territory to rende: assistance to the Juvenile Justice Committee of each High Court and to cooperate and collaborate with the Juvenile Justice Committee in H this rt:gard. RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 657 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

13. We acknowledge the contribution made by Ms. Aparna Bhat A in taking keen interest in the issues raised in this PIL and for rendering effective assistance to this Court at all times. The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee will give an honorarium of Rs. 2 lakhs to Ms. Aparna Bhat out of the funds available for juvenile justice issues. 14. While there may be some other issues specifically concerning B children in ne~d of care and protection we leave these issues open for consideration and grant liberty to the learned Amicus to move an appropriate application in this regard including any application for modification or clarification of the directions given above. 15. The Union of India is directed to communicate our directions c to the concerned Ministry or Department of each State and Union Territory for implementation and to collate necessary information regarding the implementation of these directions with the assistance of the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights and the State Commi~sion for the P~otection of Child Rights. A status report in this regard should be filed in this Court on or before 15'hJanuary, 2018. The Registry will D list this case immediately thereafter. Devika Gujrnl Directions issued.

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 625 RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN lN ORPHANAGES lN THE A STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. UNION OF lNDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.102 of2007) B MAY05,2017 (MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: s.2(14) - Children in need of care and protection - Who is a C child in need of care and protection - The provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) do not provide any definition of a child in need of care and protection - A child victim of sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment is a child in need of care and protection - Similarly, a cliild accused Dofan offence and brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or any other authority might also be a child in need of care and protection - Although a child in need of care and protection is defined in. s.2(14) of the JJ Act, 2015, the definition does not specifically include some categories of children - Consequently, since f/;e JJ Act is intended for the benefit of children and is intended to protect E and foster their rights, the definition of a child in need of care and protection has to be given a broad interpretation - It must also include victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment under the POCSO Act as also victims of child trafficking

- Such children must also be given protection under the provisions F of the JJ Act being victims of crime under the POCSO Act an(i the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Child abuse -Trafficking of children. G s.41 - Child care institµtions - Shelter Homes - Children in need of care and protection are given shelter in homes thm are managed by the State Government or by_NGOs or by voluntary organizations - s.41 of the JJ Act which mandates, notwithstanding H 625 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ''"'': 7] 4 S.C.R.

A anything contained in.any other law/or the time being in force, that all institutions, whether run by a State Government or by voluntary organizations or NGOs which are meant, either wholly or partially, for housing children in need of care and protection shall be registered under the JJ Act in such manner as •nay be B prescribed within six months of the commencement of the said Act -The JJ Act came into force on 15'h January, 2016 but the process of registration is not yet complete - The Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories are directed to complete the process of registration of all child care institutions by 31-'' December, 2017 with the entire data being confirmed and C validated - The registration process should also include a data base of all children in need of care and protection which should be updated every month - While maintaining the database, issues of confidentiality and.privacy must be kept in mind by the concerned authorities - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) D Model Rules, 2016 - r.21.

Minimum Standards of care and protection of children -Art.3(3) of the CRC specifically obligates the State Parties te ensure that institutions responsible for care and protection of children shall conform to standards laid down by competent authorities, particularly in areas of safety, health, staff and supervision -E However, the minimum standards of care prescribed for institutions cannot be ensured if the child care institution is not identified and regist'!red - The Model Rules deal with the staffing pattern of child care institutions, physical infrastructure, clothing, bedding, toiletries and other articles, sanitation and hygiene, daily routine, nutrition F and diet scale, medical health, mental health, education, vocational and recreational facilities and genuine efforts in the rehabilitation and re-integration of such children into society - All these requirements are rendered unenforceable in the absence of registration of child care institutions - If the officers of the State do not ensure that minimum standards of care are followed in the child G care institutions, they could well be guilty of negligence - The Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories are directed to enforce the minimum standards of care as required by and in terms of the JJ Act and the Model Rules positively on or before 31'' December, 2017 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 627

STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA of Children) Mode/Rules, 2016 - Convention on the Rights of the A Child (CRC) - Art.3(3). Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307 : (2005) 6 SCC 1 - relied on. Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence lO'h Edition B (2001) - referred to. Utilization of grants - It is the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure that for safeguarding and fostering the rights of children, adequate funds are available particularly for children who are in need of care and protection - Problem is the absence of a will to gainfully utilize the available grants - The State cannot C conflate non-availability of funds to shirk their obligations with inefficient utilization of grants - The 'governments of the States an<j Union Territories are directed to draw up plans for full and proper utilization of grants (along with expenditure statemf!nts) given by the Union Government under the Integrated C,hild Protection D Scheme.

National and State Commissions - Establishment of - The CPCR Act provides for the constitution of a National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and for the constitution of · State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) - These E Commissions are intended to function under the provisions of the CPCR Act - In the implementation of the POCSO Act, the NCPCR and the SCPCR play vital role - s.44 of the POCSO Act places a great burden on the shoulders of the NCPCR and the SCPCRs - It is imperative that the NCPCR and the SCPCR be allowed to function in terms of the CPCR Act and the POCSO Act and only for the F benefit of children - These Commissions are under an obligation to take action wherever necessary including approaching the Constitutional Courts wherever necessary - These Commissions are under an obligation to prepare annual reports and if necessary special reports but it has been pointed out that this requirement has G hardly been implemented mainly because of a lack of interest that these Commissions have shown in functioning under the statute and also partly because of the large number of vacancies in these Commissions - Wherever the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has not been established or though established is not H

A fully functional in the absence of a Chairperson or any one or more Members, the governments of the States and Union Tei ritories must ensure that all vacancies are filled up with dedicated persons on or before 31'' December, 2017 - The SCPCRs so constituted must publish an Annual Report so that everyone is aware of their activities and can contribute individual(y or collectively for the B benefit of children in need of care and protection - Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.

ss.53, 54 - Rehabilitation and social re-integration - With regard to the ji1ture of children in need of care and protection, the c JJ Act contains obligatory provisions such as s.53 which deals with rehabilitation and social re-integration services in child care institutions - This provision requires the State to take care of the basic requirements of children in such institutions including children with special needs, legal aid where required and more importantly ·assistance in obtaining proof of identity - Proof of identify is crucial D for the welfare of the child, otherwise he or she is reduced to a mere ,statistic - The provision for rehabilitation and re-integration services has several facets and cannot be read in isolation but must be read, inter alia, in conjunction with s.54 of the JJ Act which requires the inspection of child care institutions registered under the said Act -Inspection Committees are required to be set up which shall E mandatorily visit all facilities housing children in the area allocated, at least once in three months in a team of not less than three members, of whom at least one shall be a woman and one shall be a medical officer - It is imperative that the Union Government and the ;governments of the States and Union Territories must concentrate F on rehabilitation and social re-integration of children in need of care and protection - There are several schemes of the Government of India including skill development, vocational training etr: which must be taken advantage of keeping in mind the need to rehabilitate such children.

G Individual child care plans - The preparation of individual child care plans is extremely important and all governments of the States and Union Territories must ensure that there is a child care plan in place for every1 child in each child care institution - While this process may appear to be long drawn and cumbersGme, its necessity cannot be underestimated in any circumstances - The H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 629 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA process of preparing individual child care plans is a continuing A process and must be initiated immediately and an individual child care plan must be prepared for each child in each child care institutions on or before 31" December. 2017.

Training of personnel - r.89 of the Model Rules concerns itself with training of personnel dealing with children - This rule B provides for a minimum period of 15 days training to various categories of personnel under the JJ Act including the staff of Children s Courts, Principal Magistrates and Members of Juvenile Justice Boards, Chairpersons and Members of Child Welfare Committies, Police Officers including persons in charge of child ccare institutions etc. - r.89 of the Model Rules also postulates that the Judicial Academy and the Police Academy in the States as well as the State Legal Services Authorities prepare appropriate training modules, training manuals and provide training to personnel -Untrained or inadequately trained personnel can unwittingly play havoc with the lives of victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault or D sexual harassment - There are an adequate number of academies that can take up this task including police academies and judicial academies in the States - There are also national level bodies that can assist in this process of training including bodies like the Bureau of Police Research and Training, the National Judicial Academy Eand others including established NGOs - Wherever pos!:ible training modules should be prepared at the earliest-Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 - r.89.

ss. 44, 45 - De-institutionalization - Art.20 of the CRC obligates the State Parties to provide special protection and Fassistance to children temporarily or permanently deprived offamily environment - Art.20 illustrates alternate care in the form of foster placement, adoption "or if necessary placement In suitable institution" - It is clear that the first option exercised by the authorities should not be institutionalization of a child in need of care and protection and the same is a measure of the last resqrt - G Art.40(4) of the CRC pertaining to children accused of violating the law also states that the State Parties shall ensure "care, guidance, supervision, counseling, probation, foster care. education and vocational training and other alternatives to institutional care" -Indeed, in keeping witli the spirit of the CRC, the JJ Act itself H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A encourages alternatives to institutionalization such as adoption (Chapter VIIJ).foster care (s.44) and Sponsorship (s.45) - The Union Government has since framed the Adoption Regulations, 2017 as well as the Model Guidelines for Foster Care, 2016 - These need to be implemented by all concerned including the Courts, particularly those dealing with issues of adoption - However, training in the B understanding and appreciation of the JJ Act, the Model Rules, Regulations and Guidelines is imperative and merely handing over copies of these documents to the concerned personnel even if they are judicial officers or police officers or government functionaries is not enough - It is not necessary that every child in need of care C and protection must be placed in a child care institutions -Alternatives such as adoption and foster care need to be seriously considered by the concerned authorities - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Arts.20, 40.

Juvenile Justice Committee -High Courts have a constitutional D obligation to ensure that the rights of all citizens, including children, as guaranteed under the Constitution are preserved, protected and respected - With this in mind, all the High Courts have since set up a Juvenile Justice Committee consisting of Judges of the High Court and these Committees ensure that the provisions of the .4ct are implemented in letter and spirit - It is equally the obligation of the E concerned officials of the State, including the police, to render all assistance to each Juvenile Justice Committee to ensure that the goals envisaged by the JJ Act and the constitutional vision. are successfully achieved in the shortest possible time - The governments of the States and Union Territories are directed to set up Inspection p Committees as required by the JJ Act and the Model Rules to conduct regular inspections of child care institutions and to prepare reports of such inspections so that the living conditions of children fn these institutions undergo positive changes - These Inspection Committees should be constituted on or before 31" July, 2017 and they should conduct the first inspection of the child care institutions G in their jurisdiction and submit a report to the concerned government of the States and Union Territories on or before 31'' December, 2017 - While the Juvenile Justice Committee in each High Court is" performing its role in ensuring the implementation of the JJ Act and Model Rules, each Committee would require a small Secretariat by H'

RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 631 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA way of assistance - Juvenile Justice· Committee to seriously consider A establishing a Secretariat for its assistance - Each State Government and Union Territory is directed to render assistance to the Juvenile Justice Committee of each High Court and to cooperate-and collaborate with the Juvenile Justice Committee in this regard. Social audit - Necessity of - Held: For the purpos'e of B ensuring that the implementation of the JJ Act is proceeding in the right direction, it is necessary that a social audit be conducted every year - The requirement of a social audit is necessary not onl7 for purposes of introspection but also transparency and accountability in the effective implementation of the JJ Act - There cannot be any reason to avoid conducting social audits, more particularly since C they have been encouraged by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural · Employment Guarantee Act, 20,05 as well as by the Integrated Child Protection Scheme, by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India a_nd the National Food Security Act, 2013 - It is imperative that the process of conducting a social audit must be taken up in right D earnestness by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights as well as by each State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights.

Technology and computers - Maintenance of records of child care i-nstitutions - There is no data base of all the child care E institu(ions in the country - State Governments have not even validated the available data or undertaken the mapping of child care ins:itutions in collaboration with the Union Government -This is an essential first step since it is difficult to imagine how children in .child care institutions can be cared for. if there is no Frecord of the number of institutions, number of children in such institutions, relevant information regarding the children etc. -Therefore, technology can be put to good use for collection, revision and access of records of children in need of care and protection and the child care institutions - lt is imperative for the Union Government as well as the State Governments to make out a complete G list of all child care institutions along with their addresses and the person in charge or the principal officer as well as full details of the children residing in these child care institutions - Availability of all this information is possible only with the use of technology and a massive computerization program - Similady, for the effective H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A functioning of the Juvenile Justice Boards as well as the Child Welfare Committees, it is necessary that they should be equipped with computers and printers along with uninterrupted power supply units so that their day to day functioning can be taken care of Interpretation of statutes - Beneficial legislation ::uch as B Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -Interpretation of - Held: Beneficial legislations demand an expansive view to be taken by the Courts and all concerned - Jn order to prevent injustice or to promote justice and to effectuate the object and purpose of the welfare legislation, broad interpretation C should be given, even if it requires a departure from literal construction - The definition of a child in need of care and protection given in s.2(14) of the JJ Act should be given a broad and purposeful interpretation - It ought not to be treated as exhaustive but illustrative and furthering the requirements of social justice -Juve11ile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -D s.2(14). Workmen v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation (1985) 4 SCC 71; Regional Director, ES! Corporation. v. Francis De Costa [1992) 3 SCR 23 : 1993 Supp (4) sec 100; MSR E Leathers v. S. Palaniappan [2012) 9 SCR 165 : (2013) 1 SCC 177; Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [2013) 10 SCR 259 : (2014) 1 SCC 188; Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen [2017) 1 SCR 158 : (2017) 2 SCC 629 - relied on.

F Constitution of India - Art.39(j) - Though the D!rective Principles of State Policy are fundamental to the governance of the country, they are not enforceable - However, once a directive principle is enforced through law, the State must be obligated to enforce the statute to uphold its constitutional obligation - JJ Act is G a medium for the State to honour the Directive Principles of State Policy particularly under Art. 39(/) of the Constitution by giving opportunities to children to develop in a healthy manner. and in conditions of freedom and dignity - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 633 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [1984) 2 A SCR 67 : (1984) 3 SCC 161 - relied on. Convention on the Rights of the Child: Art.19- lndia acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on the 11th December, 1992 -Art.19 of the CRC obligates the State Parties to "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and B educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, irijury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse - Trafficking of children - Child abuse. Case Law Reference c [1984] 2 SCR 67 relied on Para 13 (1985) 4 sec 11 relied on Para 19 [1992) 3 SCR 23 relied on Para 20 D [2012) 9 SCR 165 relied on Para 21 [2013) 10 SCR 259 relied on Para 21

[2017) 1 SCR 158 relied on Para 21 E[2005) 2 Suppl. SCR 307 relied on Para 31 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 102 of2007. Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. F Maninder Singh, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, Basant R, Sr. Advs, Purushaindra Kaurav, AAG, Ms. Aparna Bhat (A. C.), Ms. Joshita Pai, Mayank_Sapra, K. Parameshwar, Meenesh Kr. Dubey, Ms. Rashrni Malhotra, B. K. Prasad, S. A. Haseeb, Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, G. S. Makker, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Mukul Singh, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Munmun Goswami, Rohit Rao N, Mukund P. lJnny, G Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ashok K. Srivastava, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Prateek Rusia, Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, C. D. Siiigh, Raghenth Basant, Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, Misha! Johari, Advs. for the appearing parties. H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. Jhis writ petition was taken up on the basis of an article published in the Hindi newspaper "Hindustan" (Lucknow Edition) on 4'hJuly, 2007. The article was written by Ms.Anjali Sinha and the translated caption of the article is "Orphanage or Places B for Child Abuse". The article was forwarded to this Court by one A.S. Choudhury along with a letter and that is the genesis of this petition which was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on lO'h Septe:nber, 2007. Ms. Apama Bhat was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. At the outset we must and do acknowledge the unstinting and excellent efforts put in by Ms. Apama Bhat over the last I 0 years in C rendering assistance in this matter. 2. Broadly, the article written by Ms. Anjali Sinha mentions that orpha:iages in Mahabalipuram in Tamil Nadu, run by NGOs as well as government institutions were reportedly involved in systematic sexual abuse of children. A sting operation indicated that sexual services of D children were being provided to foreigners as well as Indian tourists and that the rates of children whose sexual services were being taken were fixed over telephone or in a meeting at the orphanage.

3. It is further stated that in a program organized by the State Commission for Women in Tamil Nadu, representatives of the National E Commission for Women participated and it was acknowledged that government schools have become unsafe for girl students due to sexual abuse. The incident of an eight year old girl who was harassed by her Principal was mentioned and it was noted that the Principal was only transferred out by way of punishment. Another incident was mentioned F where the school teacher misbehaved with students in the presence of other atudents in a closed room. 4. The then Ministry of Family and Child Welfare along with UNICEF brought out a report on the condition of children in which it was reported that 53% of children suffered from sexual abuse. Children G were reported to be the subject of institutional abuse as well as by relatives. 5. On these broad facts Ms. Anjali Sinha suggested \hat the problem of sexual abuse of children especially in government institutions has become a.serious problem and requires immediate redressal. She H made some suggestions including a Counseling Cell in each school where RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 635 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] children are taught how to recognize abuse and providing a complaint A mechanism .accessible to children in case of any such incident. Proceedings in this Court

6. Over the years, this Court passed several orders and also mentioned that certain other issues such as trafficking of children, schools being occupied by Central Para Military Forces and the right to education B guaranteed to children require consideration. Jn other words, this Court sought to expand the scope of this PIL to include the rights of children in general. 7. In an order passed on 7'h February, 2013 the learned Addit;onal Solicitor General and the learnedAmicus submitted that the main reason C for this Court issuing various orders is to ensure that the provisions for the rights of children as well as provisions for proper facilities to children in education as also health are implemented. It was submitted that obviously the rights of children can be adequately secured only if the monitoring and controlling provisions contained in statutes relating to D children such as The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are fully implemented. E

8. A detailed order was passed by this Court on ! 6'h December, 2013 lamenting that despite the directions issued, little or no progress . was made by the States in protecting the rights of children. As far as the Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights are concerned, they exist only on paper since in some cases the Chairperson had not oeen appointed or the Members had not been appointed or no rules and . F regulations had been framed. This Court observed that the lackadaisical manner in which the States and the Union Territories had responded to the rights of children made it necessary to draw attention to the constittitional rights guaranteed to children. It was observed tha~ the inaction of the States was in the teeth of the directions given by this G Court and additionally the States and Union Territories ought to realize that they have to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, specific information was sought from each State and Union Territory regarding efforts made by the respective H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A governments. Affidavits were filed by the States and Union Territories from time to time as an attempt to respond to the questions raised by this Court regarding action taken by the concerned governments in protecting the rights of children as well as implementation of the statutes mentioned above. The responses were disheartening then and the situation has not B changed substantially even after almost a decade since this Court took cognizance of the matter. Progress, if any, has been marginal. Unfortunately, it appears that the governments of some of the States and Union Territories have little remedial or pro-active con~ern for children. 10. On 201hMarch, 2015 this Court raised the need for a social c audit in terms of Rule 64 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and the utilization offunds given to the States and Union Territories under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme. 11. On l 7'h April, 2015 this Court raised the issue of a concurrent monitoring audit under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme as well D as the establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Welfare Committees, Special Juvenile Police Units, functioning of Child Care Institutions and functioning of adoption agencies.

12. On 3l"July, 2015 at the instance of the learned Amicus, the issue of formulating Child Care Plans was discussed in addition fo laying E down a policy for conducting social audits. On 28'h August, 2015, the issue of vacancies in the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights was raised by this Court. On 30'hOctober, 2015 the format for social audits was discussed, in the context of finalizing something workable and pragmatic. F 13. Since it appeared that there was a lack of seriousness and more tragically a lack of empathy towards the well being and welfare of children amongst some of the States and Union Territories and c:implete apathy with respect to the disturbingly increasing instances of child sexual abuse, often by someone in a position of authority and ineffective G implementation of the laws passed by Parliament virtually making parliamentary legislation irrelevant, we heard detailed submissions of all the parties with the intention of passing appropriate directions so as to ensure the meaningful implementation·ofthe statutes already enacted by Parliament. It must be appreciated that the Juvenile Justice '(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is a medium for the State to honour H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 637 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

the Directive Principles of State Policy particularly under Article 39(£) A of the Constitution by giving opportunities to children to develop in a h1:althy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. Indeed, though the Directive Principles of State Policy are fundamental to the governance of the country, they are not enforceable However, as held in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, once a directive principle is enforced B through law the State must be obligated to enforce the statute to uphold its constitutional obligation. 1 · 14. In this context, it is pertinent to note that India acceded to the . Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on the 11th December, 1992. Article 19 of the CRC obligates the State Parties to "take all C appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, ir.jury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse .... " 15. Keeping all this in mind, the learnedAmicus focused on'three principal issues namely ( 1) Children in need of care and protection; {2) D Traffickrd children (3) Street children. We do not propose to con:;ider the plight of trafficked or street children, since that would mean losing focus on the issues raised by Ms. Anjali Sinha. We leave open the issues of trafficked children and street children for consideration in an appropriate case. E

16. On the rights of children in need of care and protection it was submitted that issues relating to child care institutions whether managed by the State Government or by NGOs or other voluntary organizations need to follow certain minimum standards .of care and in addition, rehabilitation of such children must be a priority. F Children in need of care and protection 17. Who is a child in need of care and protection? The provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the 'POCSO Act') do not provide any definition of a child in need of care and protection. But no one can deny that a child victim of sexual G abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment is a child in need of care and protection. Similarly in a given case,a child accused of an offence and brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or any other authority might also be a child in need of care and protection. 1 (1984) 3 sec 161 H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R.

A 18. Even though a child in need of care and protection is defined in Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the JJ Act) the definition does not specifically include some categories of children. Consequently, we are of the view that since the JJ Act is intended for the benefit of children and is intended to protect and foster their rights, the definition of a child B in need of care and protection must be given a broad interpretation. It would be unfortunate if certain categories of children are left out of the definition, even though they need as much care and protection as categories of children specifically enlisted in the definition, Beneficial legislations of the kind that we are dealing with demand an expansive C view to be taken by the Courts and all concerned. 19. In Workmen v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation2 this Court held in paragraph 4 of the Report that: "The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words D occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights' legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian dimensions. In construing'· these legislations the imposture of literal construction :nust be avoided and the prodigality ofits misapplication must be recognised and reduced." E 20. A similar view was expressed in Regional Director, ES!

Corporation. v. Francis De Costa3 when it was observed that "It is , settled law that to prevent injustice or to promote justice and to effectuate the object and purpose of the welfare legislation, broad interpretation should be given, even ifit requires a.departure from literal construction." F 21. The necessity of giving a purposeful interpretation to a provision in a statute was recognized in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan4 when this Court observed that: " ..... one of the salutary principles of interpretation of statutes is to adopt an interpretation which promotes and advances the object G sought to be achieved by the legislation, in preference to an interpretation which defeats such object. This Court has in a Jong line of decisions recognised purposive interpretation as a sound 2 {1985)4SCC71 '1993 Supp (4) sec 100 H • (2013) 1 sec 177 . RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 639 STATE .OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] principle for the courts to adopt while interpreting statutory A provisions." A similar' view was expressed, though in a different context, in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse.5 A far more detailed discussion or. the subject is to be found in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen.6 B

22. Read in this light, the definition of a child in need of care and protection given in Section 2(14) of the JJ Act should be given a broad and purposeful interpretation - it ought not to be treated as exhaustive but illustrative and furthering the requirements of social justice. This understanding would also be in consonance with Article 40 of the CRC c which stipulates that the "State Parties shall recognize rights of every child accused of an offence and treatment of such a child shall be in a manner consistent with promotion of the child's dignity and worth".

23. LeamedAmicus drew our attention to decisions rendered by some High Courts which have taken a broad based approach to the D meaning of a child in need of care and protection and some other High Courts that have adopted a comparatively narrow interpretation. These decisions were rendered in the context of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 and would not really be applicable insofar as the JJ Act is concerned. However, this does not detract from her submission that a child in need of care and protection must be given a wider meaning E and in addition to some children in conflict with law as discussed above, it must also include victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment under the POCSO Act as also victims of child trafficking. Such children must also be given protection under the provisions of the JJ Act being victims of crime under the POCSO Act and the Immoral F Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Child care institutions 24. Children in need of care and protection are given shelter in homes that are managed by the State Government or by NGOs ur by voluntary organizations. In this context, it is necessary to draw attention G to Section 41 of the JJ Act which mandates, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, that all institutions, '(2014) 1sec188 • <2011) 2 sec 629 H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R.

A whether run by a State Government or by voluntary organizations or NGOs which are meant, either wholly or partially, for housing children in need of care and protection shall be registered under the JJ Act in such manner as may be prescribed within six months of the commencement of the said Act. The JJ Act came into force on l S1h January, 2016 but we B were informed that the process of registration is underway and not yet complete. 25. In this day and age when high quality technology is avaiiable and thre is no shortage of manpower in the country we are uaable to appreciate why the provisions of Section 41 of JJ Act have not yet been fully implemented particularly as regards registration of child care c institutions. It is virtually impossible to find out what is going on within its four walls. The article by Ms. Anjali Sinha is a prime example of what can happen in child care institutions. It is not clear from the article .whether all the institutions referred to were registered or not, but surely the government run institutions must have been registered or licensed. D Therefore, if activities of the nature mentioned by Ms. Anjali Sinha in her article are carried out in government run institutions, one can only imagine what possibly can go wrong in unregistered institutions, which are managed beyond the law.

26. Apart from their registration, the statute requires quite a few E salutary actions to be taken by such institutions including recording the residential capacity and purpose of the child care institt1tion. Rule 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Model Rules) specifies the manner of registration of child care institutions and provides, inter alia, the availability of the bye-laws and memorandum of association, office F bearers etc. of such institutions. The State Government is obligated to consider an application for registration ofa child care institution (in Form 27) iP- light of aspects like whether provision exists for the care and protection of children, their health, education, boarding and lodging facilities, vocational studies and rehabilitation (among others things). It G is only then that a certificate of registration can be issued. The State Government is also obligated to conduct an inspection of an applicant institution and it appears to us that if such an inspection is faithfully and sincerely carried out, it will reveal the dark underbelly, if any, of a dubious child care institution such as those referred to by Ms. Anjali Si11ha. The H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 641 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

strict implementation of the provisions of the JJ Act will go a long way in A making the life of children in such child care institutions safer and far more comfortable than it has been and also reduce the possibility of crimes such as trafficking, sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment of children. If the registration of child care institutions is not complete, their management obviously cannot be supervised. Therefore, B a misstep in the very first stage could have a chain reaction and perhaps disastrous consequences in some cases as is evident from the incidents of cliild abuse in institutions as brought out by Ms. Anjali Sinha. Minimum Standards of care 27. Article 3 of the CRC mandates that all actions concerning c children undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, c0urts oflaw, administrative authorities or legislative bodies shall have the best interest of the children as a primary consideration. Article 3(3) of the CRC specifically obligates the State Parties to ensure that institutions responsible for care and protection of children shall conform to standards laid down by competent authorities, particularly in areas of safety, health, D staff and supervision. However, the minimum standards of care prescribed for institutions cannot be ensured if the child care institution if not identified and registered.

28. In this regard it is necessary to draw attention to the provisions of Chapter VI of the Model Rules particularly the series of rules starting E from Rule 26 onwards. Amongst other things, these Rules deal with the staffing plttern of child care institutions, physical infras~ructure, clo6ing, bedding, toiletries and other articles, sanitation and hygiene, daily routine, nutrition and diet scale, medical health, mental health, education, vocational and recreational facilities and genuine efforts in the rehabilitation and F re-integration of such children into society. All these requirements are rendered unenforceable in the absence of registration of child care institutions. 2<;. The Integrated Child Protection Scheme, which also concerns itself with the minimum standards of care in child care institutions, refers G to several of these requirements and also draws attention to the rehabilitation programme of children and their recreation. The minimum standards of care prescribed for child care institutions must be adhered to in letter and spirit and not only on paper. H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 4 S.C.R. A 30. We have been given to understand by the learnedAmicus that unfortunately, even in registered child care institutions, many of the statutory facilities and requirements are missing. If that be so, we can only imagine the living conditions of children in unregistered institutions.

31. In a given case, failure to maintain a basic or minimum standard B of care can be actionable as negligence. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Pu11jab1 this Court cited Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence8 and held that the essential components of negligence are: ( 1) the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant; (2) the failure to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, C thereby committing a breach of such duty; and (3) damage, which is both causally connected with such breach and recognized by <he law, has been suffered by the complainant. Effectively therefore, if the officers of the State do not ensure that minimum standards of care are followed in the child care institutions, they could well be guilty of negligence. Since ours is a welfare State it would be diffi~ult for uncaring officers to D absolve themselves of a charge of negligence and also perhaps of a violation of the human rights of children. Utilization of grants

32. During the course of hearing, we found that many oftht: Model Rules though workable and beneficial, exist only on paper and.there has E been no serious attempt to implement the provisions or the requirements under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme. One of the concerns that kept coming up as an excuse for non-implementation offhe Rules was a so-called shortage of funds. We are surprised that such an excuse.was advanced even though a large amount allocated towards child welfare is F lying unspent. · 33. Really therefore, the problem is not a lack of funds but the absence of a will to gainfully utilize the available grants. In this context, learned Amicus brought to our notice by way of an example, the statement of expenditure under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme for the G year 2013-14. This indicates that the unspent grant is over Rs.3000 lakhs. (This figure does not include unspent amounts by the State of Andhra · Pradesh and the State ofUttarakhand). Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a shortage of funds. The chart brought on record is as follows:-' c2oos) 6 sec 1 H ' I 0'" Edition (200 I) . RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 643 STATE OFT. N; v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] -... ) A Year-wise details of unspent grants SI. No. Name of the State Unspent (Amount in Lakhs) B 2013-14 I Andhra Pradesh 2999.28* 2 Arunachal Pradesh 147.05 3 ·Assam 148.47 c 4 Bihar 442.14 5 Chhattisgarh 0.00 6 Goa - D 7 Gujarat 545.23

8 Haryana 2.38.92 9 Himachal Pradesh 138.10 IO Jammu & Kashmir - E 11 Jharkhand 147.21 12 ·Karnataka 57.94 13 Kera la 291.52 F ; 14 Madhya Pradesh I 084.67 15 Maharashtra 0.00 ' G 16 Manipur 473.13 17 Meghalaya 0.00 18 Mizoram 0.00 H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A 19 Nagaland 0.00 20 Orissa 2.63 21 Punjab 749.37 B 22 Rajasthan 253.33 23 Sikkim 50.36 c 24 Tamil Nadu 589.22 25 Tripura 0.00 26 Uttar Pradesh 99.92 D 27 Uttarakhand 333.92* 28 West Bengal 268.95 29 Andaman & Nicobar Island - E 30 Chandigarh 25.17 31 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 9.63 F 32 Daman & Diu 58.63 33 Delhi 676.68 34 Lakshadweep - G 35 Puducherry - Total 6498.27 H * States have not submitted their Statement of Expenditure (SOE) RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 645 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.} We are told that the same situation continued for subsequent years as A well. · 34. No doubt, it is the consti~tional obligation of the State to ensure that for safeguarding and fostering the rights of children, adequate funds are available particularly for children who are in need of care and protection. The State cannot conflate non-availability of funds to shirk B their obligations with inefficient utilization of grants. We are pained that such an excuse is being trotted out. National and State Commissions

35. Parliament has, of course, appreciated the need for prote..:ting the rights of children in many of the ways that we have mentioned above C and that is why the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 was enacted. In fact the Preamble to the said Act is extremely significant and brings into focus not only the necessity of protecting the rights of children generally but also as a part of our obligations to the international community. The Preamble to the Commissions for Protection D of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPCR Act') reads as follows: "An Act to provide for the constitution of a National Commission and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights and Children s Courts for providing speedy trial of E offences against children or of violation of child rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS India participated in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly Summit in 1990, which adopted a Declaratio:i on Survival, Protection and Development of Children; F AND WHEREAS India has also acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on the 11th December, 1992;

AND WHEREAS CRC is an international treaty that makes it incumbent upon the signatory States to take all necessary steps to protect children's rights enumerated in the Convention; G AND WHEREAS in order to ensure protection of rights of children one of the recent initiatives that the Government have taken for Children is the adoption ofNational Charter for Children, 2003; AND WHEREAS the UN General Assembly Special Session on H 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A Children held in May 2002 adopted an Outcome Document titled "A World Fit for Children" containing the goals, objectives, strategies and activities to be undertaken by the member countries for the current decade; AND WHEREAS it is expedient to enact a law relating to children B to give effect to the policies adopted by the Government inJhis regard, standards prescribed in the CRC, and all other ;·elevant international instruments;" 36. To fulfill the obligations to children, the CPCRAct provides for the constitution ofa National Commission for Protection of Child c Rights (for short 'the NCPCR') and for the constitution of State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (for short 'the SCPCR'). These Commissions are intended to function under the provisions of the CPCRAct and their vast range of functions has been delineated in Section 13 as well as in Section 24 of the CPCR Act.

D 37. It was pointed out by the learned Amicus that the NCPCR and the SCPCR can play a very crucial role in fosterin& child rights. This deserves to be recognized, but is unfortunately overlooked both by the Union Government as well as by the State Governments. She pointed out that there are a large number of vacancies in many of these bodies and'· in fact the NCP~£ was, at one time, without any Chairperson for E more than a year. Some of the State Governments have also not bothered to fill up the vacancies in the SCPCR and some others have used the SCPCR as a sinecure for some favourites. This again, as pointed out, is nothing but providing lip service to the provisions of a parliamentary legislation and not giving serious attention to the constitutional rights of F children.This is certainly not acceptable . .. ' 38. Similarly, in the implementation of the POCSO Act, the NCPCR and the SCPCR have a vital role to play. As mentioned above, issues of sexual abuse or sexual assault or sexual harassment complained of by Ms. Anjali Sinha need attention and Section 44 of the POCSO Act places _ G a great burden on the shoulders of the NCPCR and the SCPCRs. These authorities have an obligation to monitor the implementation of the POCSO Act ac is evident from Section 44 thereof which reads as follows: "44. Monitoring of implementation of Act - (1) The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights constituted under Section 3, or as the case may be, the State Commission for H

RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 647 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] · Protection of Child Rights constituted under Section 17, of the A Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of2006), shall, in addition to the functions assigned to them under that Act, also monitor the implementation of the provisions of this Act in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The National Commission or, as the case may be, the State B C0mmission, referred to in sub-section (1 ), shall, while inquiring into any matter relating to any offence under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in it under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of2006). (3) The National Commission or, as the case may be, the State c Commission, referred to in sub-sectiop. ( 1), shall, also include, its activities under this section, in the annual report referred to in Section 16 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of2006)."

39. In our opinion, it is imperative that the NCPCR and the SCPCR D be allow'!d to function in terms of the CPCR Act and the POCSO Act and only for the benefit of children. These Commissions are under an obligation to take action wherever necessary including approaching the Constitutional Courts wherever necessary. These Commissions are under an obligation to prepare annual reports and if necessary special reports but it has been pointed out that this requirement has hardly been E implemented mainly because of a lack of interest that these Commissions have sho~n in functioning under the statute and also partly because of the large number of vacancies in these Commissions. 40. This is not to suggest that the NCPCR or the SCPCRs are not doing a good job. On the contrary, the NCPCR has oflate begun taking F its statutory obligations quite seriously and there are a few SCPCRs that are also faithfully performing their functions under the relevant statutes. On the other hand, there are some SCPCRs that are not performing well at all or are defunct and headless. It is difficult to appreciate '1ow, under these circumstances, the JJ Act or the POCSO Act can at all be G implemented, let alone implemented effectively. 41. Needless to say, it is obligatory on the part of the Union Government as well as of the State Governments to ensure that the provisions of laws enacted by Parliament are faithfully and sincerely H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A implemented and the statutory Commissions constituted under the provisions of the CPCRAct must be allowed to function as inde~endent statutory bodies under the provisions of the said Act, the POCSO A.ct as well as the JJ Act. 42. The rule oflaw includes adherence to parliamentary legislation B by all concerned including State Governments and the Union Government and it would be extremely unfortunate if the concerned gove:nments voluntarily and knowingly flout the provisions oflaw solemnly enacted by Parliament. We need say nothing more on this subject, except that laws solemnly enacted by Parliament cannot be insulted by putting hurdles C in the effective functioning of these Commissions, such as by not . appointing the Chairperson or Members. Rehabilitation and social re-integration

43. With regard to the future of children in need of care and protection, the JJ Act contains obligatory provisions such as Se<:tion 53 D which deals with rehabilitation and social re-integration services in child care institutions. This provision requires the State to take care of the basic requirements of children in such institutions including children with special needs, legal aid where required and more importantly assistance in obtaining proof of identity. There have been instances brought to our notice where children;particularly in the case of abandoned children, are E unable to give any information about their parentage or permanent address etc. In such cases, proof of identify is crucial for the welfare of the child, otherwise he or she is reduced to a mere statistic.

44. The provision for rehabilitation and re-integration services has several facets and cannot be read in isolation but must be read, inter F alia, in conjunction with Section 54 of the JJ Act which requires the inspection of child care institutions registered under the said Act. Inspection Committees are required to be set up which shall mandatorily visit all facilities housing children in the area allocated, at least once in three months in a team of not less than three members, of whom at least one G shall be a woman and one shall be a medical officer. Their Inspection Reports are required to be furnished to the District Child Protection Unit or the State Government, as the case may be, for further action. Form 46 of the Model Rules prepared under Rule 41 thereof is quite exhaustive and ifthe Form is filled up with due seriousness it will go a long way inl improving the living conditions of children in child care institutions. H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 649 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 45. The importance ofrehabilitation and social re-integration clearly A stands out if we appreciate the objective of the JJ Act which is to foster restorative justice. There cannot be any meaningful rehabilitation. particularly of a child in conflict with law who is also a child in net:d of care and protection unless the basic elements and principles of restorative justice are recognized and practised. B

46. Unfortunately, one of the problems faced in introducing restorative justice is that a child in a child care institution is treated as a num!;wr and no effort is made to introduce any individual child care pliin postulated by Rule 19 of the Model Rules read with Form 7. Learned Amicus informed us that the Form is very rarely filled up (if at all) and little or no attention is paid to the needs of each child including a child in C conflict with law. She submitted that specific directions should be gi~en for the preparation of individual child care plans in every child care institution since that is really the heart of rehabilitation and social re-integration of a child in need of care and protection. Of course, some expertise is involved in this exercise but as we had mentioned earlier, D there is no shortage of manpower in our country and it is only the will of the State Governments, Union Territories and the Union Government which is coming in the way of the effective implementation of the provisions of the JJ Act, Model Rules and filling up various Forms and · their analysis. E Training of personnel

47. One of the more important issues raised by the learned Amicus in the context of rehabilitation and social re-integration is to be found in Rule 89 of the Model Rules which concerns itself with training of personnel dealing with children. This rule provides for a minimum period E of 15 days training to various categories of personnel under the JJ Act including the staff of Children's Courts, Principal Magistrates and Members of Juvenile Justice Boards, Chairpersons and Members of Child Welfare Committees, Police Officers including persons in cJ.iarge of child care institutions etc. Rule 89 of the Model Rules also postulates that the Jtidicial Academy and the Police Academy in the States as well G as the State Legal Services Authorities prepare appropriate training modules, training manuals and provide training to personnel. It was pointed out by the learned Amicus that this rule is being followed more in the breach and there is hardly any Judicial Academy or Police Academy or H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R. A State Legal Services Authority which conducts 15 days training programmes. This is quite unfortunate to say the least.

48. The importance of quality training can best be understood by giving a negative example, which is that unless proper training is imparted to the concerned personnel, it is quite possible that strange practices and B procedures may evolve due to the absence of proper guidance. It has been brought to our notice in cases of adoption of children some extremely unusual and impracticable orders have been passed by the concerned "Courts. It is high time that the High Courts exercise their supervisory jurisdiction and intervene and take appropriate remedial steps. It is also high time that training of personnel be given due importance. We may C note here that it was brought to our attention by the leamedAmicus that untrained or inadequately trained personnel can unwittingly play havoc with the lives of victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault o; sexual harassment. De-institutionalization D

49. In the context ofrehabilitation and social re-integration, it was submitted before us that institutionalization of children is not necessarily the only available option. This submission of the learned Amicus also finds ,;upport in Article 20 of the CRC. The Article obligates the State Parties to provide special protection and assistance to children temporarily E or permariently deprived of family environment. The Article illastrates alternate care in the form of foste.r placement, adoption "or if necessary placement in suitable institution". It is clear that the first option exercised by the authorities should not be institutionalization of a child in need of ·care and protection and the same is a measure of the last resort. Article F 40( 4) of the CRC pertaining to children accused of violating the law also states that the State Parties shall ensure "care, guidance, supervision, counseling, probation, foster care, education and vocational trail".ing and other !llternatives to institutional care". Indeed, in keeping with the spirit ._,.. of the CRC, the JJ Act itself encourages alternatives to institutionalization such as adoption (Chapter VIII), foster care (Section 44) and Sponsorship G (Section 45). This too needs some serious thought, as submitted by the learned Amicus.

50. The learned Additional Solicitor General brought to our notice that the Union Government has since framed the Adoption Regulations, 2017 as well as the Model Guidelines forFosterCare, 2016. These need H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 651 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. -LOKUR, J.] to be implemented by all concerned including the Courts, particularly A those dealing with issues of.adoption. However, as mentioned above, training in the understanding and appreciation of the JJ Act, the MOdel Rules, Regulations and Guidelines is imperative and merely handing over copies of these documents to the concerned personnel even if they are· judicial officers or police officers or government functionaries is not Benough. Some sort of training is absolutely necessary so that the aims and objects of the various statutory provisions enacted for the benefit of children and to foster their rights are implemented in letter and spirit. 51. We must emphasize, at this stage that .it is absolutely necessary for all stakeholders having interest in the welfare of children towork together ctowards a common goal. This teamwork would include not onl~ the government machinery but also the police, civil society and the judiciary. Juvenile Justice Committee

52. That the judiciary is not far behind in fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities is obvious from the fact that the rather slack D implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ofChikiren) Act, 20()!) even after four years of its enactment, compelled the Chief Justice oflndia to request all the High Courts to set up a Juvenile Justice Committ..:e to ensure effective implementation of the said Act and monitor the activities under the said A.ct. The High Courts have a {;Onstitutional obligation to ensure that the rights of all citizens, including children, as E guaranteed under the Constitution are preserved, protected and respected. With this in mind, all the High Courts have since set up a Juvenile Justice Committee consisting of Judges of the High Court and these Committees ensure that the provisions of the Act are implemented in letter and spirit. For bette; co-ordination on issues relating to children, some High Courts F have also provided a Secretariat for the Juvenile Justice Committee.

53. With the passage of time, it has been realized that the importance of the Juvenile Justice Committee in the High Court cannot be overemphasized. It is time for all of us to now realize that judges are no longer required to remain in an ivory tower. Judges of all the Courts G including the Constitutional Couns have non-judicial duties and obligations to perform so that the fundamental rights of the people are respected. It is this realization that led the Constitutional Courts to exercise jurisdiction . in social justice issues through Public Interest Litigation and it is this that requires judges of the Courts to ensure access to justice under the Legal H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A Services Authorities Act, 1986 to indigent people and those who cannot afford legal services due to financial or other constraints. It is very much in keeping with this constitutional obligation and goals that the concern and involvement of each Juvenile Justice Committee in the effective implementation of the Act is an absolute necessity. It is equally the B obligation of the concerned officials of the State, including the police, to render all assistance to each Juvenile Justice Committee to ensure that the goals envisaged by the JJ Act and the constitutional vision are successfully achieved in the shortest possible time . .. Social audit

c · 54. For the purposes of ensuring that the implementaticm of the JJ Act is proceeding in the right direction, it is necessary that a social audit be conducted every year. Social audits give reasons for introspection as well as for improvement jn the services. 55. Social audit has gained relevance as a tool of public D accountability. It has been defined as "an assessment of a department's non financial objectives through systematic and regular monitoring on the basis of the views of its stakeholders. "9 A social audit is considered novel as it is supposed to serve as a supplement to a conventional Government Audit, often done in 12 month cycles generating an audit report every time. 10 In fact, in the Report of the Task Group on Social E Audit by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it was opined that social audit be brought into the mainstream of auditing by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department as an essential process and tool ill all the performance audits of social sector programmes as they afford an opportunity to strengthen the micro level scrutiny of the programme F planning, implementation and monitoring. 11

56. The requirement of a social audit is necessary not only for purposes of introspection but also transparency and accountability in the effective implementation of the JJ Act. There cannot be any reason to avoid conducting social audits, more particularly since they have been G encouraged by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment ' Social Audit: A Toolkit, A Guide for Performance Improvement and Qutoome Measurement available at https://cgg.gov.in/publicationdownloads2a/ Social%20Audit%20Toolkit%20Final.pdf. '"Ibid 11 Report of the Task Group on Social Audit, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor H General oflndia, (2010) at pg 5 • • RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 653 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] · Guarantee Act, 2005 as well as by the Integrated Child Protection A Scheme, by the Comptroller and Auditor General oflndia and the National Food Security Act, 2013. The impression given to us is that for ~ome .inexplicable reason the Union Government is shying away from social audits.

57. In the hearing on l 7'h April, 2015, the learned Additional Solicitor B General informed us that no social audit was carried out despite the rule being notified in 2007. The Union of India was then directed to finalize a policy for conducting social audits. In the hearing on 30'h October, 2015 we were informed that the formats for social audit have been mo~e or less finalized. In its affidavit filed sometime in November2015, the Union of India has annexed copies of Model Social Audit Formats for Child C Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards, Special Juvenile Police Units, Children Homes, Specialized Adoption Agencies, Open Shelter/ Shelter Homes, Observation Homes and Special Homes. It is stated in the affidavit that these formats will be circulated for pilot testing by selected States as mentioned in an earlier affidavit dated 29'h Oct0ber, D 2015. . 58. We have not been informed whether any steps have been taken to conduct social audits in terms of the Model Formats prepared by the Union of India or the result of the pilot testing, if any. It is therefore necessary to ensure that these formats are tested out with urgency so E that the implementation of the JJ Act is made more meaningful. Technology and computers

59. We have been given to understand that there is no data base of all the child care institutions in the country. State Governments have not even validated the available data or undertaken the mapping of child F care institutions in collaboration with the Union Government. This is an essential first step since it is difficult to imagine how children in child care institutions can be cared for if there is no record of the number of institutions, number of children in such institutions, relevant information regarding the children etc. Therefore technology can be put to good use G for collection, revision and access of records of children in need of care and protection and the child care institutions. 60. It is imperative for the Union Government as well as the State Governments to make out a complete list of all child care institutions along with their addresses and the person in charge or the prin.:ipal H ., 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A officer as well as full details of the children residing in these child care institutions. Learned Amicus submitted that all these details, though necessary, are.not available with the Union Government or the NCPCR. Availability of all this information is possible only with the use of technology and a massive computerization program.

B 61. Similarly, for the effective functioning of the Juvenile Justice Boards as well as the Child Welfare Committees, it is necessary that they should be equipped with computers and printers along with uninterrupted power supply units so that their day to day functioning can be taken care of. Learned Amicus pointed out that perhaps this may be asking for too much since she has received complaints to the effect that C very cften stationery is not available with the Child Welfare Committees or the Juvenile Justice Boards and an appropriate requisition has to be made to the State Government or the local authority, which is leisurely processed. In our opinion if this submission were to be accepted it would indicate a very sorry state ofaffairs in which the Juvenile Justice Boards D and the Child Welfare Committees are made to function. This step-child attitude cannot be permitted to continue since these statutory bodies are vital for having necessary supervision over child care institutions within their jurisdiction. Directions E 62. In view of the above discussion, the following directions are issued: 1. The definition of the expression "child in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14) of the JJ Act should not be interpreted as an exhaustive definition. The definition is illustrative and the oenefits F envisaged for children in need of care and protection should be extended to all such children in fact requiring State care and protection.

2. The Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories must ensure that the process of registration of all child care institutions is completed positively by 31" December, 2017 with the G entire data being confirmed and validated. The information should be available with all the concerned officials. The registration process should also include a data base of all children in need of care and protection which should be updated every month. While maintaining the database, issues of confidentiality and privacy must be kept in mind by the concerned authorities. H RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 655 STATE OFT. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 3. The Union Government and the governments of the States and A Union Territories are directed to enforce the minimum standards of care as requir~d by and in terms of the JJ Act and the Model Rules positively on or before 31" December, 2017. ' · 4. The governments of the States and Union Territories should draw up plans for full and proper utilization of grants (along with B expenditure statements) given by the Union Government unde; the Integrated Child Protection Scheme. Returning the grants as unspent or casual utilization of the grants will not ensure anybody's benefit and is effectively wasteful expenditure.

5. It is imperative that the Union Government and the governments c of the Sates and Union Territories must concentrate on rehabilitation and social re-integration of children in need of care and protection. There are several schemes of the Government of India including skill development, vocational training etc which must be taken advantage of keeping in mind the need to rehabilitate such children. D 6. The governments of the States and Union Territories are directed to set up Inspection Committees as required by the JJ Act and the Model Rules to conduct regular inspections ofchild care institutions and to prepare reports of such inspections so that the living conditions of children in these institutions undergo positive changes. These Inspection Committees should be constituted on or before 31st July, 2017 ai:d they E should conduct the first inspection of the child care institutions in their jurisdiction and submit a report to the concerned government of the States and Union Territories on or before 31st December, 2017.

7. The preparation of individual child care plans is extremely important and all governments of the States and Union Territories '.llust F ensure th!lt there is a child care plan in place for every child in each child care institution. While this process may appear to be long drawn and cumbersome, its necessity cannot be underestimated in any circumstances. The process of preparing individual child care plans is a· continuing process and must be initiated immediately and an individual G child care plan must be prepared for each child in each child care institutions on or before 31st December, 2017. 8. Wherever the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has not been established or though established is not fully functional in the absence of a Chairperson or any one or more Members, the H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R.

A governments of the States and Union Territories must ensure that all vacan.:ies are filled up with dedicated persons on or before 31 "December, 2017. The SCPCRs so constituted must publish an Annual Report so that everyone is aware of their activities and can contribute individually or collectively for the benefit of children in need of care and protection. B 9. The training of personnel as required by the JJ Act and the Model Rules is essential. There are an adequate number of academies that can take up this task including police academies and judicial academies in the States. There are also national level bodies that can assist in this process of training including bodies like the Bureau of Police Research and Training, the National Judicial Academy and others including C established NGOs. Wherever possible training modules should be prepared at the earliest. 10. It is time that the governments of the States and Union Territories consider de-institutionalization as a viable alternative. It is not necessary that every child in need of care and protection must be D placed in a child care institutions. Alternatives such as adoption and foster care need to be seriously considered by the concerned authorities. 11. The importance of social audits cannot be over-emphasized.

The necessity of having a social audit has been felt in some statutes which have been mentioned above and also by the Comptroller and E Auditor General oflndia. That being the position, it is imperative that the process of conducting a social audit must be taken up in right earnestness by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights as well as by each State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights. This is perhaps the best possible method by which transparency· and p accoiintability in the management and functioning of child care institutions and other bodies under the JJ Act and Model Rules can be monitored and supervised. 12. While the Juvenile Justice Committee in each High Court is performing its· role in ensuring the implementation of the JJ Act and G Model Rules, there is no doubt that each Committee will require a small Secretariat by way of assistance. We request each Juvenile Justice Committee to seriously consider establishing a Secretariat for its assistance and we direct each State Government and Union Territory to rende: assistance to the Juvenile Justice Committee of each High Court and to cooperate and collaborate with the Juvenile Justice Committee in H this rt:gard. RE: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ORPHANAGES IN THE 657 STATE OF T. N. v. UNION OF INDIA [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

13. We acknowledge the contribution made by Ms. Aparna Bhat A in taking keen interest in the issues raised in this PIL and for rendering effective assistance to this Court at all times. The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee will give an honorarium of Rs. 2 lakhs to Ms. Aparna Bhat out of the funds available for juvenile justice issues. 14. While there may be some other issues specifically concerning B children in ne~d of care and protection we leave these issues open for consideration and grant liberty to the learned Amicus to move an appropriate application in this regard including any application for modification or clarification of the directions given above. 15. The Union of India is directed to communicate our directions c to the concerned Ministry or Department of each State and Union Territory for implementation and to collate necessary information regarding the implementation of these directions with the assistance of the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights and the State Commi~sion for the P~otection of Child Rights. A status report in this regard should be filed in this Court on or before 15'hJanuary, 2018. The Registry will D list this case immediately thereafter. Devika Gujrnl Directions issued.