No Juvenile Rehab Infra Across Uttar Pradesh? Allahabad High Court Says JJ Act 'Frustrated', Moots Role Of Schools, Teachers

Essentially, the Uttar Pradesh Government's counsel informed the Court that there was no information regarding the availibiliyt of the recognised institutions, namely "fit persons," "group foster care institutions," "group foster care givers," and "case workers" as contemplated in the JJ Act, 2015, read with JJ Rules, 2016, for the entire state.

For context, these entities/institutions are essential to the implementation of the Rehabilitation and Reintegration (R & R) programme and the individual child care plan after a child in conflict with the law is released on bail.

In fact, under the JJ Act, read with the JJ Rules, these institutions serve as pillars of post-release support. They are mandated to provide the requisite care and monitoring to ensure that the juvenile does not relapse into criminal activity upon release on bail.

Taking serious note of the State's own admission, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot prima facie inferred that such institutions/facilities [fit persons, group foster care institutions, group foster care givers, case workers] do not exist in the State at all.

The Bench remarked that the Juvenile Justice Act's legislative mandate of "restorative justice" was being "completely negated" due to this systemic vacuum.

"This deficiency effectively frustrates the beneficient intent of the JJ Act, 2015 read with JJ Rules, 2016 and violates the rights of a most vulnerable section of the society namely children in conflict with law", the bench further observed.

The Single Judge was essentially hearing a criminal appeal filed by a juvenile (X) seeking bail. The bench formed the opinion that the minor-appellant was in dire need of a rehabilitation and reintegration (individual child care) plan under the JJ Act, 2015, post-release.

To facilitate this, the Court sought details from the State government regarding the existence of "fit institutions," "fit persons," and "case workers" to assist in creating this plan. The Court also sought the criteria on the basis of which such institutions have been recognised.

However, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the State could not disclose whether any such institutions had been identified. It was apprised to the bench that the agencies and authorities required to implement the R & R plan were neither nominated nor recognized.

Specific to the districts of Kasganj and Mainpuri, the Court noted that in the absence of criteria for recognition and a lack of recognized institutions, the R & R programme cannot be executed.

"Without effective implementation of the R & R programme/individual child care plan, the role of the Court becomes purely adjudicatory and the legislative mandate of restorative justice is completely negated", Justice Bhanot observed.

Noting that the foremost component of the R & R programme is education, the Court observed that, prima facie, schools and teachers satisfy the criteria to be designated as "fit institutions" and "fit persons" respectively for the purpose of implementing educational activities in the care plan.

Consequently, the Court directed Additional Advocate General, Anoop Trivedi, to file an affidavit on behalf of the State Government addressing the following ten crucial issues:

1. Steps taken for determining the criteria of "fit institutions/fit facilities," "fit persons," "group foster care institutions," "group foster care givers," "case workers".

2. Details of such entities duly identified/recognised under the JJ Act, 2015 read with JJ Rules, 2016, for post release R & R programme/individual child care plans.

3. Whether schools in which the children are proposed to be admitted as part of the R & R programme/individual child care plan to accomplish the educational mandate of the programme can be identified as such entities and the teachers in the schools can be designated as such.

4. Feasibility of giving incentives to institutions/schools to upgrade their facilities for nomination as these entities and for teachers to upskill their qualifications.

5. Nomination of other institutions, volunteer groups, civil society institutions, non government organizations, professionals which have requisite expertise and possess necessary capacity for being recognized as such entites.

6. Feasibility of development of pedagogy/curriculum for the R & R programme/individual child care plan (including) the education of the child in conflict with law.

7. Feasibility of collaboration of various educational institutions and entities like SCERT, NCERT, NCTE, State Universities, Central Universities, schools and other institutions for development of the aforesaid pedagogy/curriculum for children in conflict of law.

8. Feasibility of having a proper training programmes for teachers and other mentors who are to be identified as such entities for different activities under the R & R programme/individual child care plan.

9. Feasibility of collaboration with various institutions like SCERT, NCERT, NCTE, State Universities, Central Universities, schools and other institutions for implementation of the R & R programme/individual child care plan.

10. Plan for coordination between various departments of the State including Department of Women and Child Development, Director General (Education), Departments of Education (Higher Education, Intermediate Education, Basic Education), Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Department of Social Welfare, Mission Director for Skill Development, Department of Sports, Department of Health & Medical Education, Department of Culture, Police Department, Department of Law and any other department as may be deemed appropriate for implementation of the JJ Act, 2015 read with JJ Rules, 2016.

The Court also directed the State government to hold a conference with the Additional Chief Secretaries of the respective departments and file an affidavit reflecting a unified stand.

The District Probation Officers and District Inspectors of Schools for Kasganj and Mainpuri have also been directed to remain present on February 12, to assist the Court in finalising the R & R programme.