Child Labour and Child Rights

 M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1997 SC 699: The Supreme Court
gave certain directions on the issue of elimination of child labour:
o Survey for identification of working children;
o Withdrawal of children working in hazardous industry and ensuring
their education in appropriate institutions;
o Contribution @ Rs.20,000/- per child to be paid by the offending
employers of children to a welfare fund to be established for this
purpose;
o Employment to one adult member of the family of the child so
withdrawn from work and it that is not possible a contribution of
Rs.5,000/- to the welfare fund to be made by the State Government;
o Financial assistance to the families of the children so withdrawn to be
paid -out of the interest earnings on the corpus of Rs.20,000/25,000
deposited in the welfare fund as long as the child is actually sent to the
schools;
o Regulating hours of work for children working in non-hazardous
occupations so that their working hours do not exceed six hours per
day and education for at least two hours is ensured. The entire
expenditure on education is to be borne by the concerned employer.
o The implementation of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
being monitored by the Ministry of Labour and compliance of the
directions have been reported in the form of Affidavits on 05.12.97,
21.12.1999, 04.12.2000, 04.07.2001 and 04-12-2003 to the Hon’ble
Court on the basis of the information received from the State/UT
Governments.
 Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1: the Supreme
Court directed the central government
o to issue suitable notifications prohibiting the employment of children
in circuses within two months from today.
o to conduct simultaneous raids in all the circuses to liberate the children
and check the violation of fundamental rights of the children.
 o to rehabilitate the rescued children

o Supreme Court of India in Sampurna Behura v. Union of India1 issued some

directions to the appropriate authorities and said:
The Home Departments and the Director Generals of Police of the States/Union
Territories will ensure that at least one police officer in every police station with
aptitude is given appropriate training and orientation and designated as
Juvenile or Child Welfare Officer, who will handle the juvenile or child in
coordination with the police as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 63 of
the Act. The required training will be provided by the District Legal Services
Authorities under the guidance of the State Legal Services Authorities and
Secretary, National Legal Services Authority will issue appropriate guidelines to
the State Legal Services Authorities for training and orientation of police
officers, who are designated as the Juvenile or Child Welfare Officers. The
training and orientation may be done in phases over a period of six months to
one year in every State and Union Territory.2
The court continued to say:
The Home Departments and the Director Generals of Police of the
States/Union Territories will also ensure that Special Juvenile Police
Unit comprising of all police officers designated as Juvenile or Child
Welfare Officer be created in every district and city to coordinate and
to upgrade the police treatment to juveniles and the children as provided
in sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Act.3
o In order to check the status of the existing infrastructure for rehabilitating the
juveniles, the Supreme Court has recently in Re - Inhuman Conditions In 1382
Prisons4 issued notice to the concerned Ministry. The court ordered:
[W]e issue notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child
Development, Government of India, returnable on 14th March, 2016.
The purpose of issuance of notice to the said Ministry is to require a
manual to be prepared by the said Ministry that will take into
1
In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 OF 2005, decided on
October 12, 2011, available at http://ncpcr.gov.in/show_img.php?fid=513
2
Id., para 3.
3
Id., para 4.
4
In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Civil) No.406/2013, ordered on
February 5, 2016, available at http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2016-02-05_1454655606.pdf
 consideration the living conditions and other issues pertaining to
juveniles who are in Observation Homes or Special Homes or Places
of Safety in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.5
o In Gaurav Jain v. Union of India,6 the Supreme Court of India directed the
government to rehabilitate the children of prostitutes. It was ordered that the
children of prostitutes should not be allowed to live with their mothers in the
undesirable surroundings of prostitute homes. They require accommodation and
rehabilitation in reformatory homes.
o Supreme Court of India in Vishal Jeet v. Union of India,7 took serious note on child
prostitution. The court observed that existing laws including the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Juvenile Justice Act 1986, could not
fulfil their rehabilitative policies. The court directed the government to take effective
measures through its law enforcing authorities in order to eradicate the problem of
child prostitution. The government was further directed to provide rehabilitative
houses for the victims of child prostitution. For such purposes, the government
should also take assistance from the well-trained social workers, physicians and
psychiatrists.
o In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India,8 the Supreme Court heard the plight
of children working in circuses. The court reminded the government about essence of
right to education under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. The court directed the
government to prohibit the employment of children in circuses in order to implement
the fundamental right to education. The government was ordered to raid in theses
circuses to free children. The court directed the government to provide shelter and
rehabilitation to all rescued children at care and protective homes until they attain the
age of 18 years.
o In Re. Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Union
of India,9 the Supreme Court issued strict notice to the government and asked about
the relevant statistics relating to the implementation of Children Protective

5
Id., para 59.
6
AIR 1990 SC 292.
7
AIR 1990 SC 1412.
8
In The Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (C) No.51 OF 2006, decided on April
18, 2011.
9
In The Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Crl.) No.102 of 2007, decided on
December 16, 2013. Available at www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
 Legislations including Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Right to Education Act,
2009, Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, etc.
o In Sakshi v. Union of India,10: (i) Trial court should ensure that victim or witnesses
should be seated in such way that they could not see the accused. It is necessary to
protect the interests of victim and witnesses. (ii) Questions should be put in writing
to the victim or witnesses. It is to ensure their dignity. The language in which
questions have been asked should be clear. Furthermore, the language should not be
embarrassing in nature. (iii) the victim of child abuse or rape should be treated
with proper calmness.
o In Delhi Commission for Women v. Delhi Police,11 the Delhi High Court ordered
that the Child Welfare Committee, in cases of incest and child in need of care
and protection, is obliged to study the surroundings at home and protect every
right of the child. It is further necessary on the part of the committee to provide
medical and psychological assistance to the victim for the purpose of rehabilitation.
o In Monitoring Guidelines for NCPCR / SCPCR for Roles and Functions of Various
Stakeholders: Child Welfare Committees / Support Persons, and Health Professionals,
following psychological aids for child victims have been directed: 12
 Victims of sexual violence need to be treated emotionally. For that matter,
the first responsibility of the concerned authorities is to provide
psychological first aid to the victims of sexual abuse. Health professionals
need to study the whole case of the victim. They should examine the
victim’s state of mind. Victims’ feelings, emotions and psychology should
be examined. Victims should be provided the candid atmosphere.
 Child victims should be treated carefully by the health professionals.
While conducting the medical examination, counselling, treatment of and
sharing of the information with the child victims, the health professionals
should use simple language.
 Health professionals should win the trust of the child victims so that they
could speak without any hesitation. Health professionals should not rely on
assumptions about child’s psychological distress.

10
AIR 2004 SC 3566.
11
In The High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 696/2008, ordered on APR. 23, 2009.
12
Ibid.
o Sheela Barse v. Secretary, Children Aid Society & Others, Date Of
Judgment20/12/1986—(children while staying in the Observation Homes are
forced to work without remuneration and are engaged in hazardous
employment)—Held: Every society must, therefore, devote full attention to ensure
that children are properly cared for and brought up in a proper atmosphere where they
could receive adequate training, education and guidance in order that they may be
able to have their rightful place in the society when they grow up.
o Harsh Mader v. Union of India, Delh. HC, Aug. 8, 2018,-- Delhi High Court
quashed the legal provisions that criminalises it, and held that people beg on the
streets not because of their wish but as a “last resort” to meet their needs.
Criminalising begging violates the most fundamental rights of some of the most
vulnerable people in our society. The court blamed the state for not being able to
ensure even the bare essentials of the right to life to all its citizens. The court further
said criminalising begging was a wrong approach to deal with the underlying
causes of the problem and it ignored the reality that people who beg were the
poorest and marginalised in society. The court said the state cannot fail to do its
duty to provide a decent life to its citizens and add insult to injury by arresting,
detaining and imprisoning those who beg in search for essentials of bare
survival, which is even below sustenance. A person who is compelled to beg
cannot be faulted for such actions in these circumstances and any legislation,
penalising them was in the teeth of Article 21 (protection of life and liberty) of
the Constitution. The Court said, “If we want to eradicate begging, artificial
means to make beggars invisible will not suffice. A move to criminalise them will
make them invisible without addressing the root cause of the problem. The root
cause is poverty, which has many structural reasons: no access to education,
social protection, discrimination based on caste and ethnicity, landlessness,
physical and mental challenges, and isolation.”
o Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 469- Inter-Country
Adoption case—Court directed to constitute A regulatory body---Central
Adoption Resource Agency (for short ‘CARA’) was recommended for creation
and accordingly set up by the Government of India in the year 1989---In this
judgment, the Court noted that the absence of legal regulation of inter-country
adoptions in India could cause enormous harm to Indian children who may, for
example, be exposed to the abuses of profiteering or trafficking. In order to protect
 the welfare of children, the Court, in consultation with several social or child welfare
institutions, laid out a comprehensive framework of normative and procedural
safeguards for regulating inter-country adoption as protection against abuse,
maltreatment or exploitation of children and to secure them a healthy, decent family
life. While formulating standards and procedures the Court referenced various
relevant laws and policies including Articles 15(3), 24, and 39 of the Indian
Constitution regarding child welfare, and the principles embodied in the U.N.
Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959). The delineated safeguards include,
amongst several others, the requirement that foreigners wishing to adopt be
sponsored by relevant licensed agencies in their own country, that no adoption
application from a foreigner should be entertained directly by any adoption
agency in India, that agencies working on inter-country adoptions and licensed
by the Government of India must meet certain stipulated criteria and undertake
specific responsibilities in ensuring the safety and well-being of adopted
children, and that all inter-country adoption proceedings must be approved by
the local courts.
o Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India, 2014, Supreme Court---This judgment is
based on Uniform Civil Code---Adoption of Child---Supreme Court has decreed
that prospective parents irrespective of their religious background are free to
adopt children after the prescribed procedure. The Court said, “personal beliefs
and faiths, though must be honoured, cannot dictate the operation of the
provisions of an enabling statute.” The Supreme Court of India declared that the
right to adopt a child by a person as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
Act would prevail over all personal laws and religious codes in the country.