[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Registrar (Judl.) High Court Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 February, 2026
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
135-CRISMPIL-1-25.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
135 CRIMINAL SUO-MOTO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1 OF 2025
The Registrar (Judicial) High Court Of Judicature At Bombay,
Bench At Aurangabad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
......
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae i/b
Mr. Ganesh A. Gadhe, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S.K.Tambe, Addl.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 13
Mr. Chandrakant K. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Mr. N.E. Deshmuukh, Advocate for Respondent No.11
Mr. Harshad H. Padalkar, Advocate for Dainik Divya Marathi Newspaper
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01 DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10 FEBRUARY, 2026
ORDER (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) :
-
1. By our order dated 01.12.2025, we had reserved the matter for
a detailed order. On 01.12.2025, we heard the respective advocates and
noticed certain deficiencies in the affidavits. Hence, the present detailed
order.
2. In view of our order dated 01.12.2025, as we have noted the
lack of clarification regarding compliance in respect of paragraphs 6 to
10 of the order dated 04.09.2025, we expect the respondents to file
fresh affidavits. In fact, when the earlier order dated 04.09.2025 is very
much clear, yet the affidavits do not contain the submissions regarding:
135-CRISMPIL-1-25.odt
{2}
(i) A statement or data indicating whether the Child
Welfare Committees (CWCs) of all districts are
conducting meetings regularly, as required under
Section 28 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Further, what is
the mechanism, if any, in respect of such meetings so
conducted regularly by the CWCs, and the payments
made by the State Government for the services
rendered by the members of the CWCs, along with the
mechanism for reporting thereof.
(ii) What is the present position as regards the vacant
posts of District Protection Officers, and how does the
State Government intend to fill up the vacancies?
(iii) The present status in respect of the High Power
Committee under Section 16(2) of the Juvenile Justice
Act, and if such Committee is functioning, the copies
of the minutes of its meetings for the year 2025 be
placed before this Court.
(iv) Regarding the annual reports for the years 2018 to
2023 and also till date, whether the same have been
published in terms of the directions issued in Bachpan
Bachao Andolan and another vs. State of Maharashtra
and others [Public Interest Litigation No.108 of 2021
decided at the Principal Seat of this Court on 01st
February 2024], and if there is non-compliance with
the publication of the annual reports as directed in
paragraph No.9 of our order dated 04.09.2025 till
date, why action under the Contempt of Courts Act
should not be initiated for such non-compliance.
135-CRISMPIL-1-25.odt
{3}
Such affidavits be filed within a period of three weeks from
today.
3. As regards paragraph No.10 of the order dated 04.09.2025 and
paragraph No.2 of the order dated 01.12.2025, though in the affidavit
of Mr. Ratnakar Aijinath Navale there is a reference to the circular dated
26.11.2025, we have noted that, so far as training is concerned, it has
been suggested at the district level to the newly recruited personnel of
the Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPU) or the Child Welfare Police
Officers' Unit (CWPOU). There is no statement as regards the policy
decision at the higher level that, when such trained personnel are
transferred, then why, at the transferred place, they should not be given
the same duty. We cannot waste the training, i.e. given to such officers,
when they are transferred. If there would be availability of sufficient
trained personnel, then only those personnel can be given different
duty. For that purpose, then the State Government should come out
with a policy regarding the transfer of such personnel who are given
such training. In fact, the State Government should take the initiative to
start training at the institutional level, i.e. at the academies level, in
order to have uniformity in the procedure and the instructions, which
should not then be left district-wise, as noted in our earlier order. Mere
translation of our opinion in the form of a circular is not sufficient. In
135-CRISMPIL-1-25.odt
{4}
fact, we could have directly issued directions, taking into consideration
the needs of the Department. The Department, in fact, should make
provisions suitable to its needs, and therefore, we had left the
formulation of the policy to the State Government; however, it appears
that the State Government is not taking it itself. Of course, the last
resort available to us is to give those directions. We, therefore, direct
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 13 to file an affidavit of the Principal
Secretary (Home Department), State of Maharashtra, regarding the
same, so also in respect of the training as well as transfer of the SJPU
and the CWPOU, within a period of three weeks from today.
4. In view of our order dated 04.09.2025, Mr. M.S. Azmi, Member
Secretary, MSLSA has filed an affidavit. He has pointed out various
schemes as formulated by NALSA. It is stated that Legal Aid Clinics are
established in Juvenile Justice Boards for helping children. Those clinics
are manned by the Retainer Lawyers/Lawyers empanelled on the panel
of District Legal Service Authority. It is also stated that the MSLSA is
taking various steps by organizing legal literacy programmes, such as
awareness of the rights of children, awareness programmes on the
POCSO Act in schools and colleges, camps highlighting the ill effects
and penal consequences of female foeticide, the Beti Bachao-Beti
Padhao National Campaign, and programmes under the Right of
135-CRISMPIL-1-25.odt
{5}
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as well as the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. It is further stated that a common
minimum programme has been prepared and circulated to each District
Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for implementation. The Juvenile
Justice Committee of this Court has issued directions to the MSLSA
from time to time, and accordingly, those instructions have been
implemented in the form of the creation of a web page, helpline, etc.
5. Here, it is to be noted that, though there are schemes in place
and legal awareness camps, etc. are conducted, yet we are not getting
the expected results. If every instruction given by the MSLSA to the
DLSA would even have been implemented, the incident on the basis of
which we have taken up the issue by way of the present Criminal Suo
Motu Public Interest Litigation would not have arisen. We reiterate that
on the basis of news reports, it was found that nine minor girls had
escaped from home. They had gone to the District Court, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar, and those girls had tried to lodge a complaint with the
District Legal Services Authority. It appears that the said authority has
not then taken cognizance of the real problem of the girls, but the only
act that was done by the authority was to hand over the custody of the
girls to Damini Squad. Here, it appears that the matter was not taken up
with due sensitivity by the DLSA, and therefore, in our opinion, the
135-CRISMPIL-1-25.odt
{6}
MSLSA should conduct awareness programmes for the authorities under
it, so that if any such incident occurs in future, those authorities would
be in a position to provide better services to the children. We reserve the
point to be considered ultimately as to what directions can be issued on
this subject.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid observations, we direct
the concerned authorities to file their affidavits within a period of three
weeks from today. We now warn the authorities that their affidavits
shall be pinpointed and confined to the information called for, and any
deviation or lacuna therein shall be treated as disobedience of the order
of this Court and shall render them liable for further action under the
Contempt of Courts Act. We are required to make these observations in
view of the fact that, as it appears, there was absolutely no compliance
with the order passed in Bachpan Bachao Andolan (supra).
7. Place the matter for further consideration on 10.03.2026.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
