Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2018)

Introduction 

This is a landmark public interest litigation judgment where the Supreme Court addressed the systemic failure in implementing juvenile justice laws across India and issued comprehensive directions to ensure effective protection of child rights and proper functioning of institutions under the Juvenile Justice Act. 

• The judgment was delivered by a 3-judge Bench consisting of Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, and Justice Deepak Gupta. 

Facts 

• Sampurna Behura, holding a Masters in Sociology, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in 2005 highlighting non-implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 
• The petition drew attention to constitutional provisions imposing responsibility on the State to protect children's basic human rights and referenced the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
• Main concerns included failure of State Governments to establish Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards, Special Juvenile Police Units, appropriate homes for children, and inadequate medical facilities. 
• Between 2006 and 2016, multiple Chief Justices' Conferences passed resolutions urging States to set up required institutions, yet compliance remained poor even a decade after the Act came into force. 
• The Court impleaded the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to assist in addressing these issues. 
• The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 replaced the 2000 Act, but the core issues raised in the petition remained relevant. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether State Governments had fulfilled their constitutional and statutory obligations to implement juvenile justice laws effectively? 
• What directions should be issued to ensure proper establishment and functioning of Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Welfare Committees, and related institutions? 
• What measures are necessary to improve living conditions in child care institutions and ensure children's fundamental rights? 

Court’s Observations 

• The Supreme Court observed that voiceless children often cannot access justice without judicial intervention, making corrective judicial action necessary despite accusations of judicial activism. 
• The Court noted Nelson Mandela's statement emphasizing children as society's greatest treasure and that caring for them is a constitutional obligation, not a favor. 
• The Court found that despite multiple resolutions, State Governments had not fully complied with laws enacted by Parliament, resulting in continued official apathy toward children. 
• The Court emphasized that NCPCR and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) are crucial institutions that must be adequately staffed and given importance, but vacancies often remained unfilled for months. 
• The Court noted that Juvenile Justice Boards in many districts lacked daily sittings, leading to massive pendency—Uttar Pradesh alone had 34,569 pending inquiries. 
• The Court observed that Child Welfare Committees were treated as "second class bodies" with irregular payments and poor infrastructure. 
• The Court noted acute shortage of computers and technology with JJBs and CWCs, hindering tracking of missing children and trafficking cases. 
• The Court found many Child Care Institutions housed in deplorable conditions, with some described as "worse than prison," lacking basic amenities like nutritious food, potable water, and proper sanitation. 
• The Court observed that many States had either not established Juvenile Justice Funds or funded them with embarrassingly small amounts. 

Court’s Directions 

• The Supreme Court allowed the petition and issued comprehensive directions for effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. 
• The Court directed filling all positions in NCPCR, SCPCRs, Juvenile Justice Boards, and Child Welfare Committees expeditiously with adequate staff and infrastructure. 
• The Court mandated regular sittings of JJBs and CWCs to minimize pending inquiries and directed time-bound studies to estimate required Probation Officers. 
• The Court directed meaningful establishment of Special Juvenile Police Units and Child Welfare Police Officers with clearly identified duties, and inclusion of child rights in police training curriculum. 
• The Court directed registration of all Child Care Institutions, appointment of Visitors to monitor them, and adequate allocation to Juvenile Justice Funds. 
• The Court requested NALSA to prepare comprehensive implementation reports and every High Court Chief Justice to register suo motu proceedings for monitoring implementation. 
• The Court urged establishment of child-friendly courts and vulnerable witness courts in each district to conduct proceedings with sensitivity and empathy. 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment represents comprehensive judicial intervention to ensure effective implementation of juvenile justice legislation and protection of children's fundamental rights across India.