Case Title: Re Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Children Protection Homes
The Supreme Court ordered the Juvenile Justice Boards and Children's Courts to consider releasing all children who are alleged to be in conflict with the law on temporary bail, unless there are clear and valid reasons for the application of the proviso to Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, in order to relieve the strain on child care facilities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
A panel of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta issued the ruling in a suo moto case highlighting the circumstances of children's homes across the nation.
The Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards and Children Courts, Child Care Institutions (CCI), and the State Governments were also given specific instructions by the bench on how to stop the Coronavirus from spreading among children.
"There are children who need care and attention and are kept in or children in conflict with law who are kept in various types of homes. There are also children who are kept in foster and kinship care. In these circumstances, it was felt that the interest of these children should be looked into," the bench said while taking cognizance of the matter.
The Supreme Court had ordered each of these institutions to decide whether or not to keep children in their care, taking into account their best interests and health and safety issues. Families were to get counselling to make sure institutionalization is the last choice, according to a directive. They were also required to guarantee the security and accessibility of personal hygiene supplies inside the facilities.
The Supreme Court recommended that these organisations go virtual in order to offer help desks and hold the necessary hearings and inquiries. The bench also voiced concern for the children's safety and stressed the need of shielding them from violence, particularly sexual and gender-based assault, which may be made worse by lockdown-related stress and anxiety.
The general instructions were as follows:
Measures that child welfare committees must take:-
Children who have been returned to their families are subject to telephone case monitoring, and cases involving children in foster care are coordinated through the District Child Protection Committees and Foster Care and Adoption Committees (SFCACs).
To be implemented at the State level are online help centres and support networks for staff and children in CCIs.
Juvenile justice boards and children's courts must take action:-
For conducting interviews, online video sessions should be scheduled.
If there are any children in observation homes who are allegedly in trouble with the law, JJB should consider taking action to release them all on bond unless there are compelling grounds to apply the proviso to Section 12, JJ Act, 2015.
For quick case resolution, video conferences or online meetings can be arranged without physical touch.
Governments should take these measures:-
Plan staffing rotations or schedules to minimise in-person interaction by CCI personnel by working with Persons in Charge of CCIs and District Child Protection Units.
In accordance with Rule 66(1) of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, make sure that all government employees do their duties diligently and take stern action against any instances of duty neglect.
Make sure there is enough money in the budget to cover any expenditures that may come from managing the pandemic effectively.
How to get to CCIs:-
Take the appropriate actions to display, practise, and encourage good hygiene habits, and keep track of their adoption.
Regularly check youngsters residing in institutions and adhere to the Health Referral System.
Supreme Court made it clear that such directives also apply to kids in kinship and foster care. It concluded by saying that the State Government and the nodal agencies shall remain updated on all pertinent advisories and circulars that the government issues from time to time, as well as any necessary guidance.
All States and Union Territories were ordered to form "High-Level Committees" by a Supreme Court bench led by Former Chief Justice S. A. Bobde to identify the categories of offenders who may be freed on parole for four to six weeks. In order to relieve jail overcrowding, it was also noted that convicts convicted of or charged with crimes carrying sentences of up to seven years in prison may be eligible for release.