1986 (12) TMI 379 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the judgment of the Bombay High Court regarding grievances related to the working of the New Observation Home managed by the Children's Aid Society, Bombay.

Working of the New Observation Home:
The appellant, a freelance journalist, raised grievances about the functioning of the New Observation Home, alleging delays in repatriation of children, lack of proper follow-up actions, and illegal detention resulting in harassment to the children. The High Court found some allegations baseless but accepted others, issuing recommendations for improvement.

Directions and Recommendations:
The High Court recommended various actions, including sending repatriation orders to the police, reviewing allowances for escort duties, and constituting an Escort Service. It also emphasized the need for prompt actions by the Government and Magistrates to ensure the welfare of children in Observation Homes.

Appellant's Contentions:
The appellant argued that children in Observation Homes were forced to work without remuneration, leading to financial gains for the Society. She contended that the High Court's directions were inadequate and failed to consider mandatory provisions of the Children's Act and constitutional rights. The appellant suggested that the Society should be treated as a State entity for better protection of children's rights.

Judicial Observations:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper upbringing and training of children for the country's future. It highlighted the need for trained personnel, including Child Welfare Officers and Juvenile Court officials, to handle children's issues sensitively and effectively. The Court agreed that the Respondent-Society should be treated as a State entity and directed the State of Maharashtra to enforce laws and implement necessary measures for child welfare.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed the State of Maharashtra to enforce laws, fulfill constitutional obligations, and implement the High Court's and its own directions. The Court also awarded costs to the appellant and criticized disparaging observations made by the High Court against her, emphasizing her genuine efforts for the welfare of children. Justice Pathak concurred with the order treating the Children's Aid Society as part of "the State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.