ORDER

On the last date of hearing, that is, 20th March, 2015, we had required the learned Additional Solicitor General to place before us the reports of the social audit, if any, conducted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India under Rule 64 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short "the Rules") for the last two years.

2. Learned Additional Solicitor General informs us that not even a single social audit has been conducted so far. We are extremely shocked at this disclosure made today by the learned Additional Solicitor General.

3. The Rules came into operation some time in 2007 and what is stated before us is that not even a single social audit has been conducted in the last seven years.

4. Rule 64 of the Rules postulates that the Central Government or the State Government shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the Act") on an annual basis. This requires a review of matters concerning:

(i) establishment of the Juvenile Justice Boards;

(ii) establishment of the Child Welfare Committees;

(iii) establishment of the Special Juvenile Police Unit;

(iv) functioning of child care institutions; and

(v) functioning of adoption agencies.

5. In other words, for the last seven years or so, none of these matters, which are required by Rule 64 of the Rules, have been subjected to a social audit. It is quite clear, therefore, that the Rules framed by the Central Government are not being implemented by the Central Government itself.

6. Learned Additional Solicitor General has drawn our attention to the revised Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS). This Scheme is certainly not in lieu of the requirements of Rule 64 of the Rules and this is not disputed by learned Additional Solicitor General.

7. We are informed by him that Paragraph 6 of the Scheme relates to monitoring and a Project Approval Board has been constituted in the Ministry of Women and Child Development to scrutinize and approve implementation plans, annual plans and financial proposals from States and Union Territories and other organizations for release of grants under the Scheme.

8. Sub-paragraph (iv) of Paragraph 6.2 of the Scheme relates to concurrent monitoring through a social audit. This requires that the Ministry of Women and Child Development may depute experts/external agencies in the area of child protection to visit States/Union Territories periodically to oversee the implementation of the Scheme. The experts are also required to visit child care institutions and non-institutional care programmes being implemented under the Scheme in the States and Union Territories.

9. We are told that not a single concurrent audit has been carried out and in fact there is nothing to indicate that any expert or external agency has been associated for the purpose of this monitoring.

10. Learned Additional Solicitor General assures us that on or before the next date of hearing, an affidavit will be filed by the Secretary in the Ministry of Women and Child Development personally indicating:

(i) the monitoring mechanism proposed under the ICPS, and

(ii) the methodology that will be required for carrying out the concurrent monitoring audit under the ICPS. He also assures us that the affidavit will state how the social audit postulated under Rule 64 of the Rules is proposed to be carried out.

11. In our opinion, the time frame for the audit under the ICPS as well as the social audit under Rule 64 of the Rules should also be indicated through an affidavit.

12. In our order dated 20th March, 2015, we had also required the learned Additional Solicitor General to give us a chart indicating the actual head-wise utilization of the amounts disbursed to the State Governments under the ICPS over the last two years.

13. A chart has been handed over to us in Court today and we have gone through it. We are surprised to see that in many of the States the amount has