HIGH COURT ORDER REGARDING RESPONSIVENESS IN CASES OF CHILD

LABOUR as passed on September 04, 2015.

The High Court of Delhi in succinct gestures enumerated a set of directions to amply address
the contentions surrounding the functional duties to be disposed of by various stakeholders in
dealing with cases of child labour. The Court woke up to procedural and accountability woes
after twin Writ Petitions were filed by Seema Roy1 and Jayakumar Nat & Another2 against the
Government of NCT of Delhi. The Coram constituting of Honble Justice Kailash Gambhir
and Justice P. S. Teji took stock of the below par functioning of the Child Welfare
Committees, the Labour Departments and Delhi Police. The petition was preferred under
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C) seeking a direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus for producing a minor
before Court and for his release into the custody of his mother, the petitioner.
The case involved the issue of child labour and the subsequent lapse in the system to check
its propagation followed by delays in their rehabilitation for want of timely orders. It was
highlighted in the case of Suraj, a minor who was reportedly employed in an auto-repairing
centre along with a group of 4 5 children. The information was relayed on Butterflies
Childline3 on 12.06.2015 where after the NGO, based on information received, approached
the concerned Deputy Labour Commissioner to conduct a rescue operation, which took place
on 14.07.2015 by a team comprising of members from the NGO, Butterflies, the Labour
Investigation Officer (LIO), Sub Inspector (SI) and two constables from the concerned
Labour Department in South District, New Delhi. However, the failing effectiveness of the
system was conspicuous witnessing the laxity of CWCs in passing orders for care and
protection of the child as well as his re-unification with the guardian. It was revealed that the
child had been receiving an average of Rs. 400/- per month for a 10-hour work shift, for the
past three months. His injuries were consistent with welding related burns. However, no
action had been initiated against the employer as per provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation),
Act, 1986. The child being sheltered in the Resilience Centre of Butterflies was produced in
1 W.P.(CRL) 1548/2015
2 W.P.(CRL) 1805/2015
3 Helpline being run for the benefit for and information regarding children on 1098.

Court on 29th July, 2015. Since no steps were taken by the police to register the FIR against
the said employer, therefore, a direction was given to the concerned Joint Commissioner of
Police to file his affidavit after holding a detailed inquiry as to why the local police failed to
timely register the FIR and the reasons for not arresting the said employer. Delay was
admitted and a separate explanation was sought for the same. With regard to this, the
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)4 was forwarded to all concerned departments.
On response of the Labour Department
The NGO had approached the Labour Department first on 16.06.2015, and since no action
was taken, a reminder letter was forwarded on 08.07.2015 and verbal assurance was given as
to the assistance from the LIO. The Courts demand for a reasonable response regarding delay
in conducting the raid was provided by the Addl. Labour Commissioner who cited that the
Inspecting Officer was occupied in other cases leading to delay in attending to the complaint.
Perusing the reminder dated 08.07.2015, the Court realized it contained at least 8 other cases
of child labour for which the department could not apprise the Court of any action taken. All
explanations were a variation of the same cause, namely the department being overburdened
to discharge multifarious functions since a district now only had two officers, as opposed to
nine, in the 1980s. This is why they could not effectively implement the directions given by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Court on its own Motion v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi5 dated 15th July, 2009 and the SOP dated 8th May, 2015 issued by Department of
Women and Child Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Even to recover the wages of
Master Suraj and Rs. 20,000/- from the employer towards the rehabilitation fund for the
benefit of the child, the machinery renewed laws and came into action much later in time
during the pendency of the present petition.
Role of local police
It was distressingly admitted that an unexplained delay of 18 days had occurred in the
lodging of FIR, and careful perusal of Diary Entry revealed that preliminary inquiry had not
4 As laid down by Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in
compliance with the various provisions ensued in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 and rules framed thereunder for safeguarding the best interest of the child including
restoration of the children back to their families, transferring of children to their native
states/countries as well as placing the children for long-term care in a child care institution.
5 W.P.(C) 9767/2009

been carried out. It was felt that in order to cover the lapses, the explanation provided was the
inadvertent belief that CWC was seized of the matter and by virtue of the judgment of the
Honble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.6, the
cases in which an inquiry is conducted, six weeks time is granted for registration of the
cases.
Lapses in proactive effort of CWCs
It was observed that the child was produced before the Kalkaji CWC, on 15.07.2015, which
directed the IO and SI of Govindpuri Police Station to take necessary action and submit a
report, while custody would remain with the NGO. The matter was directed to be listed on
24.07.2015, in the appropriate CWC, that being Lajpat Nagar. That it is always not necessary
that Butterflies be given custody of the child in all cases where the Childline Team of
Butterflies is involved. There is a separate Childline Team of Butterflies which participates in
rescuing children and there is a separate Resilience Centre where children may given shelter
if so directed by the Child Welfare Committee. Thereafter the next date of appearance was on
07.08.2015 and 08.08.2015 in front of the CWC with progress report to be submitted by the
NGO and the SHO, Govindpuri Police station regarding the home investigation and initiation
of legal proceedings, respectively. Surprisingly, the Chairman of CWC, Lajpat Nagar, stated
that he had recently joined on 2nd July, 2015 and wasnt aware of any such SOP nor has he
been given any kind of training to know as to how the cases of such children are to be dealt
with. The Court opined that CWCs had failed to deliver upon their roles as per powers
conferred to them under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2000 and
were adjourning matters of rescued children in a routine manner. In the present case, there
had been undue delay citing lack of jurisdiction completely eclipsing the needs of the child
whose custody was in limbo while his mother ran from pillar to post. It underlined the
relevant aspects of the law:
1. Under Section 31 of the Act, CWC has the final authority to dispose of the cases for
the care protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the children as well
as to provide their basic needs and protection of human rights.
2. Section 32 (1) provides that the rescued child shall be produced before the Committee
without any loss of time but within a period of 24 hours including the time necessary
for the journey.
6 (2014) 2 SCC 1

3. Section 39 deals with the aspect of restoration of the child and explanation to this
section delineates and sets the precedents as to whom the child should be restored and
in the said category, first are the parents of such a child.
4. Rule 27 describes all situations surrounding the production before CWC, and
thereafter the decisions to be taken to implement governing laws, since it is the prime
objective of any children home or the shelter home to take immediate steps as are
considered necessary for the restoration of the child to his parent, guardian or the
other designated persons as the case may be after giving suitable directions.

Observations of the Court

The Court felt that Action Plan issued by National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights (NCPCR) for abolition of child labour, covered all aspects formulated for strict
enforcement and implementation of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act
(CLPRA), 1986 and other related legislations after the Court passed a detailed order dated
24th September, 2008, issued in the W.P. (Crl.) 2069/2005, W.P. (C) 4125/2007 and W.P.(C)
4161/2008 noticing that the constitutional mandate and statutory provisions with regard to
children were not being vigorously implemented and there was a lack of coordination
between various Departments/authorities of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) as well as
with other States from where children are brought to work in Delhi, a committee was
constituted by NCPCR vide OM dated 3.10.2008. In the Components of the Strategy for
Unaccompanied Child Labourers (Migrants) in Delhi, provisions have been made for
forming a Steering Committee on Child Labour under the Chairpersonship of Chief Secretary
along with other concerned Secretaries of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The action plan provides a
detailed procedure to be adopted at the pre-rescue and post-rescue stage. The pre-rescue plan
deals with as to how information is to be collected, verified and the composition of the rescue
team as well as what sort of training is to be imparted in advance to the members of the
rescue team. This Committee has the following duties as per the Action Plan:
1. Interface on a quarterly basis with government officers of the source States and
review the cases of child labour handled by the district level task forces in the
previous quarter and also the cases pending at their level.
2. To look into the operational difficulties in the implementation of the relevant laws
relating to the child labourers as well as the action plans and to overcome the
difficulties being faced by any of these stakeholders.

3. Address the grievances of NGOs/activists/RWAs, etc. pertaining to child labour

within a reasonable time.
The District Level Task Force headed by Deputy Commissioner of each district has to
oversee and monitor all actions for identification, pre-rescue planning, rescue operation,
interim care, and prosecution of employers/violators under all relevant laws, including
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, repatriation, rehabilitation/social
reintegration and follow-up. The Court refrained from reminding the stakeholders of their
roles for it was already on record, and had been discussed in detail. Reiteration of Claude
7.7.2 of the Action Plan clearly envisaged the duty of Labour Department to take prompt
action within 24 hours in case of large number of child labourers, and to immediately liberate
the children if its a small group with the help of departmental colleagues and police. The
Court having heard both sides emphasized on the suggestion made by Counsel for petitioner
regarding accountability for lapse or inaction on part of the responsible officers. In light of
the circumstances arising in handling cases of child labour, the Court deemed it appropriate to
give the following directions:
a) The Chief Secretary of Govt. of NCT of Delhi shall convene an urgent meeting of all
the stakeholders to have a complete review of the functioning of all the bodies who are
involved in the process and to ascertain the exact reasons as to why they have failed to
carry out the said directives.
b) He shall also lay down the guidelines issuing necessary directives for fixing the
responsibility of the officers so as to make them accountable if there arises any lapse or
inaction without there being sufficient or cogent reasons for the same.
c) He must arrange for proper orientation programmes of all the Chairpersons of
CWCs in various districts and of all the stakeholders so that they know their exact
duties and functions and their roles as defined under various statutes and other
directives.
d) He shall incorporate all the previous directives and the fresh directives to be issued in
the form of a booklet and every department and the officer concerned should
mandatorily possess such a booklet, in a bid to prevent any such officer from pleading
ignorance of his own duties.
e) GNCTD shall come out with a proper scheme to address the issue of rehabilitation of
rescued children by providing some kind of economic help so that the parents or

guardians do not force them to work as child labourers again to meet with their basic
needs and to supplement their income for their basic survival.
f) A meeting in this regard should take place within a period of one month and
subsequently, within a period of three months fresh directives shall be issued on the
above lines by the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary may take into consideration
some of the suggestions given by the Advocates, so as to ensure that there is no delay in
the restoration of the rescued children to their parents/ guardians until and unless it is
not in the best interest of the safety of the child which is a paramount concern.