On 14th December, 2016, in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.906 of 2014], while addressing on the issue of drugs, alcohol and substance abuse amongst children in India, a three Judge Bench observed that “these are matters which should not be brushed under the carpet” and that the “authorities should consider how children should be sensitised (having due regard to the age and stage of the child) of the dangers of drug use, the necessity to report drug use and the need to develop resistance to prevailing peer and social pressures.”
Facts:
- This petition has been filed in public interest (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution in the wake of serious violations and abuse of children who are forcefully slacken in circuses, in many occurrence, without any approach to their families under uttermost inhuman conditions.
- There are occurrence of sexual abuse on a daily basis, physical abuse as well as emotional abuse. The children are underprivileged of basic human needs of food and water.
- A contempt petition was filed in the writ petition by the petitioner on 26.04.2013,, complaining of the way in which a complaint made regarding a missing child was handled by the concerned police station.
- For the same case, certain directions were passed which also included additional directions for executing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended in 2006.
- The court passed an interim direction that when any case regarding missing children is being reported in police station, the same should be reduced into a First Information Report (FIR) and suitable steps should be taken to ensure that follow up investigations takes place immediately.
- But , there was an element of doubt raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the recording of the First Information Report (FIR) relating to missing child, having consider to the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which relates to information in cognizable cases.
Issues involved:
- Whether the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to frame appropriate guidelines for the persons engaged in circuses be filed?
Judgment:
- In order to execute the fundamental right of the children under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution it is vital that the Central Government must issue suitable notifications prohibiting the employment of children in circuses within two months from today.
- The Respondents are directed to conduct contemporaneous raids in all the circuses to liberate the children and check the violation of fundamental rights of the children. Children to be kept in the Care and Protective Homes till they attain the age of 18 years.
Conclusion:
- In this present case the Article 32 of Indian constitution is applied to file a suit.
- In this case, the solicitor general of India argued that each state government should select a person to oversee the enforcement of child-related laws. It was decided that no kid may be denied a fundamental right protected by the Indian constitution or subjected to abuse or trafficking of children.
India has made significant legal decisions regarding human trafficking. The cases are People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India; . M. C. Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu; Prerna v. State of Maharashtra, (2003); Budhadev Karmaskar v. West Bengal State, (2011)
Adv. Khanak Sharma (D/1710/2023)