Legislation UpdatesNotifications

S.O. 1595(E)— In pursuance of Section 4 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), the Government of India hereby appoint Ms Pragna Parande as Member (Juvenile justice or care of neglected or marginalized children or children with disabilities), National Commission for Protection of Child Rights in the pay scale equivalent to that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India with effect from 09th March, 2019(A/N) for a period of three years, or until on attaining the age of 60 years, or until further orders, whichever is the earlier.

S.O. 1596(E) — In pursuance of Section 4 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), the Government of India hereby appoint Ms Rosy Taba as Member (Elimination of child labour or children in distress), National Commission for Protection of Child Rights in the pay scale equivalent to that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India with effect from 10th March, 2019(F/N) for a period of three years, or until on attaining the age of 60 years, or until further orders, whichever is the earlier.

[Dt. 27-03-2019]

Ministry of Women and Child Development

Hot Off The PressNews

As per Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government is following a multi-pronged strategy for elimination of child labour. It comprises of statutory and legislative measures, rehabilitation and universal elementary education along with convergence with other schemes for socio economic development. Government has enacted the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 which came into force w.e.f. 01-09-2016. The Amendment Act inter alia provides for complete prohibition of work or employment of children below 14 years in any occupation and process and adolescents in the age group of 14 to 18 years in hazardous occupations and processes. The amendment also provides stricter punishment for employers for violation of the Act and made the offence as cognizable.

After strengthening the legislative framework through amendment in Child Labour Act, Government has framed the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2017 which inter alia specifies the duties and responsibilities of State Governments and District Authorities to ensure effective enforcement of the provisions of the Act. Government has also devised a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) as a ready reckoner for trainers, practitioners and enforcing and monitoring agencies. Government is also implementing the National Child Labour Project (NCLP) Scheme for rehabilitation of child labour. Under the Scheme children in the age group of 9-14 years, rescued/withdrawn from work are enrolled in the NCLP Special Training Centres, where they are provided with bridge education, vocational training, mid day meal, stipend, health care, etc. before being mainstreamed into formal education system.  Further to ensure effective enforcement of the provisions of the Child Labour Act and smooth implementation of the NCLP Scheme a separate online portal PENCIL (Platform for Effective Enforcement for No Child Labour) has been developed.

In addition to above Ministry of Women and Child Development has enacted Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). As per Section 2 (14) (ii) and (ix) of JJ Act, a child who is found working in contravention of labour laws for the time being in force or is found begging, or living on the street and who is found vulnerable and is likely to be inducted into drug abuse or trafficking is included as a “child in need of care and protection”, among others. The children in need of care and protection (CNCP) for rehabilitation has been placed in institutional care i.e. children homes or non-institutional care, such as sponsorship, foster care by Child Welfare Committee. As per JJ Act, 2015, State/UTs are required to set-up Child Care Institutions (CCIs) and are also required to register and monitor them under Section 41 and 54 of the Act respectively.  The primary responsibility of execution of the Act, lies with the State/UTs. However, Central Government is managing “Child Protection Services” (CPS) (erstwhile Integrated Child Protection Scheme) under umbrella Integrated Child Development Services, and providing financial assistance, as Grant-in-Aid, to the States/UTs on sharing pattern for, inter-alia, undertaking a situational analysis of children in difficult circumstances, for setting up and maintenance of various types of CCIs. Further National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), a statutory organization under this ministry, has developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for care and protection of Children in Street Situations to streamline the processes and interventions regarding children in street situations. Under the scheme “CPS”, institutional care is provided through CCIs, as a rehabilitative measure. In these CCIs, children are provided age appropriate education either within the institution or outside in a formal education system through convergence with other schemes and programs of the Government or civil society. Under the non-institutional care component, support is extended for adoption, foster care and sponsorship.

Ministry of Women and Child Development

Call For PapersLaw School News

About: Bharati Law Review (BLR) is a quarterly double-blind peer reviewed academic journal, published and print. It focuses on issues related to Administrative Law, Civil Procedure Law, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, Domestic Law, Economic Law, Environmental Law, Intellectual Property Law, Private International Law, Public International Law, Media Law, E-commerce, Banking, Insurance, Information Technology, Computer Science, Cyber Security, and emerging trends in allied subjects.

The Journal is currently soliciting submissions for Volume VII Issue 1 (July-September) 2018. We welcome submissions from academicians, practitioners, students, researchers and experts from within the legal community. We have a strong preference for articles that assert and defend a well-reasoned position.

Call for Papers: Bharati Law Review ISSN 2278-6996 is a quarterly double blind peer reviewed journal. We look forward to submissions from members of the Bar, Bench and the academia. Submissions can be in the form of long articles, short articles, case comments, legislative notes and book reviews.

Special Issue: Volume VII Issue I

The editorial board has decided that the main theme of the FIRST issue of Volume VII shall be “Juvenile Justice and Care”. The Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of children Act, 2015 has been enacted and implemented across the country (except J&K). It is a comprehensive legislation dealing with children of two categories: Children in conflict with law and Children in need of care and protection. Considering all these gaps, this Act has been enacted with an objective to provide proper care and protection, development, treatment and social reintegration of children through the provision of child friendly approach keeping the best interest of children.

Sub-Themes:

  • Juvenile Justice System in India: Need for systemic changes
  • Recent trends in Juvenile Justice System
  • Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
  • Juvenile Justice and the Convention on the Rights of Child
  • Juvenile Justice: Constitutional Perspective
  • Juvenile Justice System in Common Law Countries
  • Right to Education and Juvenile Justice
  • Adoption under Juvenile Justice System
  • Terrorism, Technology and Juvenile
  • Juvenile Justice and child abuse

Nature of Contributions

Articles: An article must conduct a complete analysis of the area of law, which the author seeks to highlight. It must contain a comprehensive study of the existing law, indicating the lacunae therein, and must contain an attempt to suggest possible changes which can address the said lacunae. An article should be between 4,000-5,000 words.

Essay : An essay is more adventurous as it challenges challenging existing paradigms/norms and provides a fresh outlook to common problems. It is strongly recommended that essays be considerably more concise than articles, in terms of scope and conceptualization. An essay is thus advised to be between 3,000-5,000 words.

Notes: A note is a relatively concise form of an argument advanced by the author. The focus of a note should be on a relatively new debate or controversy regarding the interpretation or implementation in the law. Notes shall primarily highlight contemporary issues, which need to be addressed, and the authors are expected to offer a solution. The maximum word limit for a manuscript in the form of note is 2,500 words.

Comments: A comment is where the author may decide to critique any recent/landmark judicial pronouncement or any recent legislation or bill before the Parliament or State Legislature. The word limit for a comment is 2,500 words.

Submission Guidelines

Word Limit: As has already been indicated, the maximum word limit for articles and essays is 5,000 words (exclusive of footnotes) whereas that for notes and comments is 2,500 words (exclusive of footnotes).Citation Format: The citation format to be used is The Bluebook (19th Edn.). In keeping with the same, speaking footnotes are discouraged.

Abstract: Every submission should be accompanied by an abstract of not more than 350 words describing the relevant conclusions drawn in the manuscript. Please note that there is no requirement of prior submission of abstract as the selection of the paper for publication shall be on the full manuscript. The abstract shall serve merely to help the Editorial Board in its review process.

Biographical Information of Authors: A document with biographical information of the authors must be given in the footnote of Author’s Name including the following details: Post, Email address, Postal Address, Name and Address of Institution, Course (if applicable), Academic Year.

Submission Deadline: The last date for submission of papers is August 15, 2018.

Mode of Submission: Submissions shall be made on or before August 15, 2018 by sending an e-mail at blr@bvpnlcpune.org .

Submissions should be made along with Plagiarism Test Report and complete details of Author(s).

All submissions shall be made in a prescribed sample format.

Plagiarism Policy: For more details click here.

Contact

+91- 9890845670 (Dr. Sapna Deo, Sr. Co-ordinator)

+91- 9028233059 (Anamika Sharma, Student Co-ordinator)

+91- 8806599256 (Prakhar Srivastava, Student Co-ordinator)

Or write an email at blr@bvpnlcpune.org.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Showing dismay over the “tardy implementation” of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the JJ Act), the Bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ urged the Chief Justice of each High Court to seriously consider establishing child friendly courts and vulnerable witness courts in each district and said:

“We need to have some compassion towards them – even juveniles in conflict with law, since they are entitled to the presumption of innocence – and establishing child friendly courts and vulnerable witness courts is perhaps one manner in which the justice delivery system can respond to ease their pain and suffering.”

The Court said that such child friendly courts and vulnerable witness courts can also be used for trials in which adult women are victims of sexual offences since they too are often traumatized by the not so friendly setting and environment in our courts.

The bench also gave a number of directions in order to invigorate the juvenile justice system in the country. Some of the important directions are as follows:

  • All positions in the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the State Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights (SCPCRs) should be filled up well in time and adequate staff is provided to these statutory bodies so that they can function effectively and meaningfully for the benefit of the children.
  • The State level Child Protection Societies and the District level Child Protection Units should take the assistance of NGOs and civil society to ensure that the JJ Act serves its purpose.
  • All positions in Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) should be filled up expeditiously. The JJBs and CWCs must have sittings on a regular basis so that a minimal number of inquiries are pending at any given point of time.
  • The NCPCR and the SCPCRs must carry out time bound studies and especially a study for estimating the number of Probation Officers required for the effective implementation of the JJ Act. Based on this study, the State Government must appoint the necessary number of Probation Officers.
  • The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) should have a database of missing children, trafficked children and for follow up of adoption cases etc.
  • Meaningful Special Juvenile Police Units and appoint Child Welfare Police Officers in terms of the JJ Act must be set up at the earliest as Police has an important role as the first responder on issues pertaining to offences allegedly committed by children as well as offences committed against children.
  • The National Police Academy and State Police Academies must consider including child rights as a part of their curriculum on a regular basis and not as an isolated or sporadic event.
  • All the Child Care Institutes must be registered. State Governments and Union Territories would be should appoint eminent persons from civil society as Visitors to monitor and supervise the Child Care Institutions in all the districts.
  • The JJ Fund is a bit of an embarrassment with an absence of an effective response from the State Governments and the Union Territories. Financial Resources should be made available for the welfare of the children.
  • All authorities such as JJBs and CWCs, Probation Officers, members of the Child Protection Societies and District Child Protection Units, Special Juvenile Police Units, Child Welfare Police Officers and managerial staff of Child Care Institutions must be sensitized and given adequate training relating to their position.
  • The Chief Justice of every High Court is requested to register proceedings on its own motion for the effective implementation of the JJ Act so that road-blocks if any, encountered by statutory authorities and the Juvenile Justice Committee of the High Court are meaningfully addressed after hearing the concerned governmental authorities.

The Bench said the policy and decision makers should understand that they are not doing any favour to the children of our country by caring for them – it is their constitutional obligation and the social justice laws enacted by Parliament need to be effectively and meaningfully enforced. [Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 106, decided on 09.02.2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where the appellants were involved in at least 24 cases of various offences allegedly committed between 1988 and 1995 and one was alleged to have committed murder and robbery in the year 1988, the Court refused to rely upon the opinion of the medical board in determining the age of the appellants, in the absence of the other cogent evidence, so as to give benefit under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Court said that the purpose of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 is not to give shelter to the accused of grave and heinous offences.

As per the medical report submitted in the year 2016, the appellants would have been born in the year 1979. The Court said that, going by the report, one accused would have been 9 years old at the time of commission of his first offence in the year 1988 and the other would have been 14 at the time of commission of his first offence in the year 1993. The bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and R. Banumathi, JJ added that had it been so, when the appellants were produced in those cases the appellants would have been considered as ‘children’ by the very appearance. They would have been dealt with accordingly by the concerned juvenile court and the matters would not have been kept pending till this date. Hence, the opinion of the Medical Board determining the age of the appellants as 35-40 years in May, 2016 cannot be relied upon.

Stating that medical evidence as to the age of a person though a very useful guiding factor is not conclusive and has to be considered along with other circumstances, the Court said that a blind and mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of the medical opinion by the radiological examination. The Court hence, rejected the plea of juvenility of the appellants in the absence of other cogent evidence. [Mukarrab v. State of U.P., 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1413, decided 30.11.2016]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: While dealing with the question of the sentencing of a juvenile in light of the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 during the pendency of the case, the Bench comprising of V. Gopala Gowda and Uday Umesh Lalit JJ., set aside the sentence of life-imprisonment of the Appellant and remitted the matter to the Jurisdictional Juvenile Board. The Court also recommended that fine should be levied and compensation should be paid by the Appellant to the victim’s family.

In the present case, the Appellants were convicted on the basis of the dying declaration of a man they had allegedly set on fire. The Court dismissed the first criminal appeal no. 2084/2009, as provocation or unreliability of dying declaration were insufficiently proved. The next Appeal turned upon the fact that Appellant Dilshad was of age 16 years, 5 months and 5 days on the date of the occurrence i.e. 27.12.1990, when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was operative, whereby a 16-year old was not juvenile. During the pendency of the appeal to the High Court, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force, effectively replacing the earlier Act. As reiterated in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551, and Bijender Singh v. State of Haryana (2005) 3 SCC 685, Section 20 of the new Act considers pending cases, and provides via a non obstante clause an exemption for proceedings pending before the Courts. In such cases, a finding shall be recorded, but in lieu of sentencing, the Court was to hand over the juvenile to the custody of the Juvenile Justice Board which was to pass relevant orders. The Court also relied on Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 5 SCC 344 in terms of determining juvenility of juvenile in which it was said that the determination even during revision or appeal proceedings, has to be in accordance with clause (l) of Section 2 even if the juvenile ceases to be a juvenile on or before 1-4-2001.
.
The Court while holding appellant Dilshad to be juvenile in terms of the 2000 Act as on the day of occurrence and guilty of the offence with which he was tried, set aside the sentence of life imprisonment passed against him and remit the matter to the Jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board for determining the appropriate quantum of fine that should be levied on the appellant Dilshad and the compensation that should be awarded to the family of the deceased keeping in mind the directions issued in Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 193. Further, the bail bonds furnished by Appellant Mumtaz were cancelled and taken in custody forthwith to undergo the sentence awarded to him.  [Mumtaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2016 SCC OnLine SC 653, decided on 01-07-2016]