'Our Orders Are Only On Papers': Gujarat HC Flags State's Silence On 'Specific Queries' On Functioning Of State Child Rights Commission

While hearing a PIL seeking effecting implementation of child protection laws in the state, the Gujarat High Court on Friday orally said that the court's "specific queries"–including functioning of state child rights commission and conducting of social audit, recorded in its earlier order had remained unanswered further questioning how affidavits were being drafted which do not answer these queries. The high court, after taking note of an affidavit filed by the state, during the hearing orally said, that it seemed that during the drafting of the affidavits, the court's orders containing the queries were not being read, adding that its orders were "only on papers". A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a 2021 PIL seeking a direction for effective implementation of the Supreme Court's order in Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India and others (2019). The plea further sought "strict and effective implementation" of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 and the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005.State Commission for Protection of Child Rights not functioningDuring the hearing on Friday (September 20), advocate Pragyan Sharma appearing for the petitioners–Bachpan Bachao Andolan and Sampurna Behura, referred to the report of the State Legal Services Authority and submitted that the 'State Commission for Protection of Child Rights' (SCPCR) which is the "main body" tasked with carrying out "social audit" is not functioning for the last four years. For context, a social audit is conducted to assess the management of child care institutions. "Nothing has happened. State has been committing time and again. It is really unfortunate," Sharma said. He further referred to the high court's January 18 order in the matter and said that it was an "admitted fact" that the commission was not constituted. Referring to the statement made by the state's counsel as recorded in the January 18 order the high court on Friday asked the state's counsel whether any further affidavit had been filed in the matter. As the state's counsel pointed to its affidavit which contained its submission, the high court orally noted that the affidavit was of April this year. "In January you said the process is on, in April you said process is ongoing; in September you are not aware of the results so what submission you would make?" the high court orally said. To this the state's counsel said that he had received instructions today morning and sought some time ensure compliance. "We will ensure that within two weeks we will report the compliance. We will do the needful," he said. To this the high court orally said that from January till date, eight months had gone by. It further orally added, "You are the state authority you have to be prompt.Then you are justifying. How can you justify your inaction? Instead of placing any affidavit, you must have looked to that. You were aware that you have not done so. You should have said in the beginning that 'yes we are at fault and please grant me time' instead of justifying your inaction". Social AuditWith respect to conducting of social audit, Sharma said that concerned department had stated that the "social audit is responsibility of the SCPCR". At this stage the Chief Justice orally said, "But the department is part of it. For women and child development there is a department of the State. Secretary of that department is answerable as to why social audits are not been done. Is there any response?" Sharma said that no explanation had been given as to why throughout there had been no social audit. He submitted that a detailed affidavit had been filed by the state that "in that there is no mention of social audit". The high court thereafter further orally said, "Queries of the court are not answered and there are many things said in the affidavit about implementation. But specific queries of the court on social audit there is no answer...What I suppose is when you are drafting affidavits you don't even read our orders. And this is how affidavits of the officers are coming up. Our orders are only on papers. They are not worth consideration for even officers of the court who are representing the state authorities. If you are not giving any credence to our orders who else will do? How could you draft such an affidavit where you are not answering our query? And then you are drafting affidavit of the Secretary, Woman and Child Development who is supposed to give answer to every query. So that means that our orders are not supposed to be looked into at all. And this is happening in every case". The high court further orally said that the petitioner's counsel as well as the court employs its "energies", and the court writes orders by giving "sufficient judicial time" so that everything comes in the order to enable answers to the court's queries; however "nobody is...

'Our Orders Are Only On Papers': Gujarat HC Flags State's Silence On 'Specific Queries' On Functioning Of State Child Rights Commission

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Our Orders Are Only On Papers': Gujarat HC Flags State's Silence On 'Specific Queries' On Functioning Of State Child Rights Commission

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers