Tapscott, D. (1999).

“The Networker”, Government Executive, Washington, 31(7), 106-

107.

Wessanen, B. (2002). “The future of e-Government: Technology-fuelled management Tools”. Public

Management, Washington, 84(5), 6-9

https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/digital-signature

fgCLINICAL

ADVOCATES ACT – STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND MAJOR CASE LAWS REGARDING
MISCONDUCT.

Fundamental prerequisite of any profession is good ethics. Ethics denotes to human behaviour to
make decisions between what is correct and what is wrong. Professional ethics are those set code or
moral principles that govern a person's conduct in a professional workplace or work life. In the legal
profession, a lawyer must obey to professional codes for fair dealing with the client and uphold the
self-possession. The Indian government has established a statutory body known as The Bar council
of India under the Advocate Act,1961.

Advocate Act, 1961

It was introduced to implement the recommendations of the All-India Bar Committee and taking into
account the Law Commission's recommendations relating to the legal profession. The Parliament has
established The Bar Council of India under section 4 of The Advocate Act,1961. As per section 7(1)(b)
the council has to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates. And
section 49(1)(c) allows the bar council of India to make rules as to suggest the standard of
professional conduct to be observed by advocates.
Duties of Advocates to courts are:
# to maintain a respectful attitude and dignity towards courts.

# not to impact on the decision of a court by any unlawful or inappropriate means.

# use his best effort to avoid his client from doing unfair practices.

# to appear in the court in the prescribed dress, and a presentable manner.

# to wear bands or gown in courts only or ceremonial occasions and not in public places.

# not to plead in any matter in which he is himself interested.

unishment For Professional Misconduct

As per section 35 of the Advocate Act,1961 if a person is found guilty of professional misconduct
then the case will be referred to a disciplinary committee, then they fix a date of hearing and
issue a notice to the Advocate. Then the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council, will
hear both the parties, the court may:
# Dismiss the complaint,
# warning to advocate;
# suspend the Advocate from practice for certain period of time;
# remove the name of an advocate from the state roll of advocates.

n article regarding the professional misconduct of lawyers in India, with landmark

judgments on professional miscond

SEMINARChild Welfare Committees (CWCs) and the standards of care in child care
institution
CONTENTS

1. ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 4
2. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH ...............6
3. BACKGROUND CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ...................................9
The Juvenile Justice System Powers and Functions of Child Welfare
Strengths of the existing data Constraints/ limitations of the existing data
4. DATA ANALYSIS: STATUS AND FUNCTIONING OF CWCs ...................11
5. SETTING UP OF CWCS AND SUPPORT BODIES.........................................14
Number of CWCs per district and jurisdictional coverage
CWC Support Bodies
6. COMPOSITION AND PROFILE OF CWC MEMBERS........................ 31
Member strength
CWC Gender Composition
Eligibility of Members
i) Age
ii) Education and experience
iii) CWC selection process
7. CWC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SITTINGS ............
Infrastructure and Venue of sittings
 Practice of additional special sittings
 Practice of rotation sittings
 Practice of parallel sittings
Frequency and duration of CWC sittings
CWC member attendance during sittings
 Management of cases during sittings
i. Display board
ii. Style of sitting iii. Management of cash flow during CWC proceedings
iii. child friendliness
8. CHILD REFERRAL SOURCES..................................................... 43
9. CASE CATEGORIES/ REASONS FOR CHILD REFERRALS...................... 46
10. PROCESS AND NATURE OF CWC DECISIONS............................................. 49
11. INADEQUATE NUMBER OF CWCS AND SUPPORT BODIES
12. IRREGULARITIES IN CWC COMPOSITION AND MEMBER SELECTION
13. POOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPROPERLY MANAGED CWC SITTINGS
14. CONCERNS RELATED TO CWC CHILD REFERRAL SOURCES
15. ISSUES SURROUNDING CWC CASE TYPES AND CATEGORIZATION
16. PROCESS AND NATURE OF CWC DECISIONS: GAPS AND CHALLENGES
17. SEVERE GAPS IN FULFILMENT OF CORE CWC RESPONSIBILITIES AND
FUNCTIONS
18. POOR CASE DATA RECORDS AND REPORTING PRACTICES
19. INADEQUATE PERSONNEL SUPPORT
20. MONETARY CONCERNS
21. POOR CWC ROLE CLARITY AND INADEQUATE LEGAL AWARENESS
22. STANDARD OF CARE IN CHILD CARE INSTITUTIONS
ABBREVIATIONS

 ADM: Assistant District Magistrate

 CICL: Children in Conflict with Law
 CNCP: Children in Need of Care and Protection
 CPSU: Central Project Support Unit
 CPU: Child Protection Unit
 CRC: Convention on the Rights of the Child
 CRPC: Code of Criminal Procedure
 CRY: Child Rights and You
 CWC: Child Welfare Committee
 CWO: Child Welfare Officers
 DAB: District Advisory Board
 DCPC: District Child Protection Committee
 DCPS: District Child Protection Society
 DCPU: District Child Protection Unit
 DLSA: District Legal Services Authorities
 DOE: Department of Education
 DOH: Department of Health
 DOL: Department of Labour
 DOP: Department of Police
 DSW: Department of Social Welfare
 DSWO: District Social Welfare Officer
 DWCD: Department for Women and Child Development
 FIR: First Information Report
 ICPS: Integrated Child Protection Scheme
 IGNOU: Indira Gandhi National Open University
 ITPA: Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
 JAPU: Juvenile Aid Police Unit
 JJB: Juvenile Justice Board
 JJC: Juvenile Justice Committee
 JJ (C & CP) Act, 2000: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
 JJ Fund: Juvenile Justice Fund JJS: Juvenile Justice System
 J&K: Jammu and Kashmir
 KSCPCR: Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights
 MIS: Management Information System
 MSOP: Maharashtra Standard Operating Procedures
 MWCD: Ministry for Women and Child Development
 NALSA: National Legal Services Authority
 NCPCR: National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
 NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
 NIPCCD: National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development
 PIL: Public Interest Litigation
 PO: Probation Officer
 POCSO: Protection of Children against Sexual Offences
 SAA: Specialised Adoption Agency
 SATHI: Society for Assistance to Children in Difficult Situation
 SAB: State Advisory Board
 SCPC: State Child Protection Committee
 SCPCR: State Commission for Protection of Child Rights
INTRODUCTION

The current investigation is the primary ever subjective examination on the working of the
CWCs in India. It presents the current CWC field real factors and gives key experiences into
the framework's qualities, holes and difficulties. Through these experiences, the investigation
intends to add to the endeavours of strategy producers and child assurance professionals in
achieving very much educated, proof-based reformist changes inside the Juvenile Justice
System for children out of luck of care and security.

The cross country working of the Juvenile Justice System (JJS) first went under the High
Court scanner in the Sampurna Behrua v/s Union of India and others case 1 NCPCR was
made a respondent for this situation through a request dated 14/02/2011 and was coordinated
to present a report giving proposals to fitting execution of the arrangements of the Juvenile
Justice Act. In compatibility of the Supreme Court order, the NCPCR documented a nitty
gritty affirmation in which the dreary working of CWCs alongside explanations behind the
equivalent were indicated, albeit no inside and out research study was led at an opportunity to
show up at the equivalent.

The current arrangement of proposals to be presented by the NCPCR to the GOI be that as it
may, will be founded on completely examined research information. The ongoing sixteenth
December 2012 Delhi assault case has brought the Juvenile Justice (Care what's more,
Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as corrected in 2006 and 2010 (hereinafter alluded to as
the JJ Act) under serious public examination. In this scandalous case, one of the charged is a
adolescent matured seventeen years and a half year according to class affirmation records.
The warmed political, legal, public and media discusses encompassing this case have kept on
1
(Writ Request (C) No. 473 of 2005).
focusing around the fitting degree of discipline that will be dispensed to adolescents who
carry out horrifying wrongdoings, with the mass talk fundamentally inclining towards
extreme discipline for the adolescent. Regarding the JJ Act, the conversations encompassing
the case are basically cantered around the JJ Act relating to Children In Conflict with Law
(CICL), while the State's obligation as recommended in the JJ Act for Children in Need of
Care and Protection (CNCP) has infrequently, if at any point, been examined. A Times of
India article (Srivastava, 2013, February 1) has uncovered that the adolescent blamed had a
prickly childhood history having left his home and family at an exceptionally youthful age
and having been taken a crack at school for just a 18 months, consequently unmistakably
demonstrating that the State had fizzled in its obligation of guaranteeing sufficient
consideration just as the privilege to instruction for this child.

It is very conceivable that had the concerned CWC recognized this child as expected and
given the essential consideration, security and restoration, he might have all around been kept
from submitting such an egregious wrongdoing. It's implied that such anticipations and
mediations must be made conceivable through an advanced JJS framework for children
needing care and assurance, one that India woefully needs yet earnestly requires.

Taking into account this critical necessity to reinforce the child insurance framework in India,
the 2013-14 Union Budget delivered for the current month in March 2013 is incredibly
frustrating painting an exceptionally upsetting picture for child assurance partners. The rate
share of children's financial plan inside the Union Budget has been decreased from 4.76% in
2012-13 to 4.64% in 2013-14. Further troubling is the way that most extreme cuts have been
made in the segment of child insurance, particularly when the Centre is pushing for the usage
of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act. The
absolute use for the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) has been diminished from Rs.
400 crores to Rs. 300 crores this year, which is a 25% reduction, as against the scenery of the
twelfth Planning Commission having assessed the requirement for operationalization of child
insurance programs at Rs. 5300 crores over the Plan time frame for example Rs. 1060 crores
for every year. This significant reduction to the main public child security conspires
supported by the centre that gives an apparently extensive child assurance plan, is impossible
when child misuse and brutality against children has been on a steady ascent2.

Child insurance has reliably stayed a low need in India. Except if the focal government takes
satisfactory note of the current helpless working of the child security framework that is
2
The Indian Express, 2013, March 4; webindia123, 2013, February 28; The Hindu, 2013, March 14
reeling because of deficient assets and absence of State uphold, there is a probability that the
productive working of the JJS, comprehensive of the CWCs - the skilful expert for
guaranteeing assurance to children, may stay tricky.

OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH

CWCs are the most basic locale level bodies for guaranteeing suitable execution of the JJ
Act. The law enables CWCs to be the last expert for the consideration, treatment, assurance,
improvement and restoration of children needing care and security and for arranging all
objections identified with these children while guaranteeing that their fundamental rights
furthermore, needs are met. In the current setting as has been definite above, it is accordingly
indispensable to zero in on the manners by which the CWCs can be fortified to play out their
duties with more noteworthy productivity. To have the option to do this, it is fundamental to
right off the bat evaluate the lacunae and challenges in the current CWC activities. In view of
this reasoning, coming up next are sketched out as the key targets of the current examination:

1. Evaluate the current working of CWCs dependent on existing State-level

investigations and other pertinent writing.
2. Identify holes and difficulties in CWC working
3. Provide proposals for improving CWC adequacy.

The examination stays into the whole scope of CWC-related protected and useful
components, counting profile of CWC individuals, the board of sittings, child reference
sources, measure also, nature of CWC choices, partner coordination, documentation
rehearses, financial concerns, limit building and so on to portray manners by which the
working of these regions can be improved.

The findings and recommendations provided in this study are relevant for policy makers,
CWCs, and all child protection stakeholders working directly or indirectly with the JJS.
These include primarily the Ministry for Women and Child Development (MWCD), State
Departments for Women and Child Development (DWCDs), District/ State Legal Services
Authorities (D/SLSAs), State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCRs),
District/ State Child Protection Units (D/SCPUs), Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs), Department
of Police (DOP), Department of Social Welfare (DSW), Department of Labour (DOL),
Department of Education (DoE), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in the
area of child rights, public spirited persons etc.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The Juvenile Justice System

Before 1986, each State in India had its own order on Juvenile Justice with children being
dealt with diversely by various State general sets of laws. The Union Parliament of India
passed its first focal enactment on Juvenile Justice with the JJ Act of 1986. A uniform law
was in this manner set up, with India being the main nation on the planet to have an
adolescent equity law that covers the two children needing care and security and children
who come in struggle with law. With the death of this Act, guaranteeing security for children
in troublesome conditions for example children needing care and security, came to be seen
for the first time as an essential piece of social equity as additionally the equity conveyance
framework.

The JJ Act 1986 anyway victimized young men regarding age, with the extent of the Act
reaching out up to eighteen years for young ladies however just sixteen years for young
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggguwhauisgsigwsgdiagwsdi