Dismissed

Kamal Jagdish Singh v. the Childrens Aid Society and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2019PIL/48/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench PIL disposed of. Court observed lack of remedial action in children homes over five years. Directed District Magistrate to statutorily review Child Welfare Committees and ensure compliance with Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

What did the court decide?

Petitions and appeals in PILs were disposed of by directing District Magistates to conduct quarterly reviews of Child Welfare Committees and submit six-monthly reports to the Court.

Kamal Jagdish Singh Vs the Childrens Aid… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(8) PIL 115-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 115 OF 2014

¶5

High Court on its own Motion on the report submitted by the Registrar (Inspection-I), High Court, Bombay

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 425 OF 2017

¶12

¶13

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 115 OF 2014

¶14

Children’s Aid Society Employees Union .. Applicant

¶15

In the matter between

¶16

High Court on its own Motion on the report submitted by the Registrar (Inspection-I), High Court, Bombay

¶17

.. Petitioner

¶18

Vs.

¶19

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶20

WITH

¶21

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (STAMP) NO. 81 OF 2015

¶22

Kamal Jagdish Singh .. Petitioner Vs. The Children’s Aid Society & Ors. .. Respondents

¶23

WITH

¶24

CONTEMPT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 5 OF 2018 IN

¶25

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (STAMP) NO. 81 OF 2015

¶26

1/5

¶27

(8) PIL 115-14

¶28

Kamal Jagdish Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Devendra Fadnavis, President of The Children’s Aid Society & Ors. .. Respondents

¶29

WITH

¶30

SUO MOTU PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 3 OF 2015

¶31

High Court on its own Motion on the report/letter dated 4^th June, 2016 submitted by the Principal Magistrate, City Juvenile Justice Board, Mumbai .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶32

Ms. P. H. Kantharia, Govt. Pleader a/w. Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶33

Ms. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ankit Kulkarni for Children Aid Society.

¶34

Ms. Radhika Samant i/b Mr. Pradeep Havnur for the Petitioner in PIL (L) No.81/15.

¶35

AND

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶37

SUO MOTU PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 2 OF 2016

¶38

High Court on its own Motion .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶39

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate-Amicus Curiae a/w. Mr. Chetan Mali. Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D. P. Singh for the Union of India.

¶40

2/5

¶41

(8) PIL 115-14

¶42

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2019.

¶43

P. C. :

¶44

Suo motu proceedings in public interest commenced pursuant to order dated 16.12.2014. The existing building to house the juveniles was dilapidated. It had to be demolished and new building had to be constructed. The period interregnum demolition of the dilapidated building till it was reconstructed required juveniles to be shifted to another Juvenile Home or Observation Home.

¶45

The male juveniles were shifted to David Sassoon Industrial School, Mahim and the female were shifted to Asha Sadan, Umerkhadi. Thereafter various orders have been passed to ensure finance being made available to the Public Works Department so that the new building could be completed. Hope it was expressed that this would be within a year as per order dated 17.03.2015.

¶46

Other above noted litigations got added. All raise same issues concerning children in children homes.

¶47

Today, over five years have lapsed and the various orders show that the Court has virtually taken over the role of a Supervisor to ensure that the new building is constructed and the juveniles brought back to the new building.

¶48

The orders passed show that there was a shift in the principal object for which the Public Interest Litigation was suo motu commenced. The shift was with respect to the condition of the various

¶49

3/5

¶50

(8) PIL 115-14

¶51

Children Homes in the State; facilities such as toilets, food etc. were prima facie opined to need upgradation. The issue concerning mentally challenged boys and girls also attracted the attention of the Court.

¶52

In our opinion, in a Public Interest Litigation, the task of the Court is to ensure that the committees constituted under the Statute discharge their duties and ensure that the State makes available the necessary funds so that the Children Homes can not only be established but adequate funds made available so that these Homes are managed properly.

¶53

In the State of Maharashtra, the Child Welfare Committee has been constituted as per the mandate of Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. As per the mandate of the said Section, at each district in the State of Maharashtra, the Child Welfare Committees have been constituted.

¶54

As per Sub-section 8 of Section 27 of the Act, the District Magistrate has to conduct a quarterly review of the functioning of the committees.

¶55

The power of the Child Welfare Committees is wide and includes the power to issue directions to ensure proper care, protection, rehabilitation or restoration of the children in need of care and protection. It is the duty of the Committee under Clause (viii) of Section 30 to conduct at least two inspection visits per month of residential facilities of children in need of care and protection. The Committees have the power to issue directions for improvement in quality of service to the District Child Protection Unit and the State Government. As per Section 54 the State or District Inspection

¶56

4/5

¶57

(8) PIL 115-14

¶58

Committees have to inspect institutions housing children even if they are not registered under the Act and the reports have to be submitted to the District Child Protection Unit or the State Government.

¶59

It needs to highlight that as per Sub-section 10 of Section 27, the District Magistrate is the grievances redressal authority and thus, if there is an issue concerning the management of Children Homes, applications can be filed before the District Magistrate. Thus, the Child Welfare Committees can move applications before the District Magistrate.

¶60

Thus, we dispose of the Public Interest Litigations, Notice of Motion and Contempt Petition directing the District Magistrate to conduct a quarterly review of the functioning of the Child Welfare Committees which is the duty of the District Magistrate under SubSection 8 of Section 27 of the Act. The District Magistrate shall ensure that the Child Welfare Committees function as per law and discharge their duties and especially the duty under Clause (viii) of Section 30 of the Act. The District Magistrate shall submit six monthly report to the Chairperson of the District Level Legal Services Committee who in turn would submit the report to the Registrar General of this Court; to be placed before the High Court Legal Services Committee which may issue such directions that are warranted.

¶61

[N. M. JAMDAR, J.]

¶62

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶63

5/5

Kamal Jagdish Singh v. the Childrens Aid Society and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Jagdish Singh v. the Childrens Aid Society and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Madhukar Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Arun Baburao Kadam and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forests and Ors.

Narayan Natha Dole Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Arun Baburao Kadam and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forests and Ors.

Shri. Hirishikesh Arun Nazre Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation through Mun. Commissioner, City Engineer and Ors.

Nashik Nagarik Kruti Samiti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Bhausaheb Gondkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijaykumar Chhaganrao Sarode Vs the Union of India and Others

Chamunda Motors and 4 Others Vs Sunder Corporation and 6 Others

Rajendra Madhukar Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra State Primary Teachers Association Vs the Administrative Officer and Ors.

High Court on Its Own Motion on the Report/Letter DT.04/06/2015 Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kamal Jagdish Singh Vs Devendra Fadnavis, President of the Children'S Aid Society and 3 Others

High Court on Its Own Motion on the Report Submitted by the Registrar (Inspection-I), H.C. Bombay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another