HC raps Haryana Child Welfare Officers for 'mechanical' handling of minor's case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has come down heavily on Haryana’s Child Welfare Officers for acting in “complete deviation from the objectives” of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, their actions exposed a 17-year-old girl to potential danger despite her being declared a child in need of care and protection.

Expressing strong dissatisfaction with the functioning of the officers, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed: "Their actions reflect a deviation from the objectives of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates a sensitive and rationale assessment of child’s safety and welfare. Instead of adhering to the spirit and intent of the Act, their good judgment has seemingly been clouded over by lack of rationality and proper application of mind.”

The court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Haryana, for “appropriate action against the officials concerned of the Child Welfare Committee for failing to show the sensitivity required in the present matter and thereby exposing the petitioner to enhanced danger/threat to her life and liberty.”

Taking note that the State had failed to file the report sought earlier regarding the mechanism adopted to ensure the welfare of children placed in custody of guardians or in Children’s Homes, the court imposed Rs 25,000 costs on the office of the Director, Women and Child Development Department. The amount was directed to be deposited with liberty to the State to recover it from the erring officials responsible for non-compliance.

“No reasons have been set out as to why the needful has not been done by the State of Haryana,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted, while adjourning the matter to December 12 for compliance.

The case initially come before the court in September when the minor petitioner through counsel Karanveer Singh sought protection from her relatives after alleging neglect and harassment following her father’s death. Her habeas corpus plea earlier that month had led to her being placed in protective custody, but the authorities subsequently handed her over to her uncle “without her consent”, prompting her to flee again.

Terming the episode a reflection of systemic failure, Justice Bhardwaj asserted in his earlier order that “the State abandoned its responsibility to ensure that adequate protection and welfare mechanism is in place to ensure the wellbeing of the child.” The Bench then directed the State to file an affidavit detailing “the process adopted to ensure the wellbeing of children who have been put in custody of guardians or are put in Children’s Homes,” along with data on children who had run away from such homes in the past five years. Considering the risk to her safety, the court had ordered her lodging in Aashiana and Snehalaya for girls in Chandigarh, till she attained majority.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the court was informed that the petitioner had turned 18. She appeared before the Bench and expressed her wish to live in Chandigarh with her 23-year-old “next friend”, she was intending to marry.

Taking a note of her submissions, the court disposed of her petition with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, “to issue appropriate directions to the concerned SHO for ensuring the safety and security of the petitioner, in the event of the petitioner residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Union Territory, Chandigarh.”