In Re Children In Street Situations vs .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1985

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
In Re Children In Street Situations
SMW (C) No(s). 6/2021 ([ONLY W.P.(CRL.) NO. 274 OF 2020 IS LISTED UNDER THIS ITEM]) WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 274/2020 (PIL-W), (IA No. 139277/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 10286/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 8311/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 97311/2020 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF)
Decided on : 01-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR (A.C.), Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR, Mr. Abishek Jebaraj, Adv, Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Adv., Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv, Ms. Priyanka Mali, Adv., Saziya Mukadam, Adv., Mr. Sambhav Gupta, Adv, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv., Ms. Aarti Krupa Kumar, Adv., A. Reyna Shruti, Adv
For the NCPCR : Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR, Ms. Soumya Kapoor, Adv., Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv., Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv., Mr. Manish, Adv., Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv., Mr. S.S. Rebello, Adv., Mr. M.k. Maroria, AOR
For the Union of India : Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv., Mr. S.S. Rebello, Adv., Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR, Mr. G.S. Makker,AOR
For the State of Chhattisgarh : Mr. S.C. Verma, Sr. Adv./Adv. General, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi AOR, Mr. Arjun Nanda, Adv., Mr. Gaurav, Adv.
For the State of W.B. : Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv., Mr. Vishaal Prasad, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv., Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv.,
For the State of Telengana : Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR, Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv, Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Adv.
For the State of Mizoram : Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv, Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv, Mr. Akash Singh, Adv, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR
For the State of Haryana : Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, AAG, Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
For the State of Goa : Mr. Ravindra A. Lokhande, Adv., Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv, Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv., Dr. Vidyottma Jha, Adv.
For the State of Goa : Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, Adv., Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, AOR
For the State of A.P. : Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.,
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv., Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv., Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv., Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv
For the State of Bihar : Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
For the State of H.P. : Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, AOR
For the State of Manipur : Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv., Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
For the UT of Puducherry : Mr. Aravindh S., AOR, Ms. C. Rubavathi Adv, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv, Ms. Anu K Joy, Adv, Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv
For the State of Tripura : Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Borthakur, Adv.
For the State of Gujarat : Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
For the State of Meghalaya : Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR, Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv., Mr. Kynpham V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv., Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
For the State of Punjab : Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv, Mr. Karanvir Gogia,Adv, Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv., Mr. Varnika Gupta, Adv, Ms. Ashima Mandla, Adv
For the State of T.N. : Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR, Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv., Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Adv.
For the State of Nagaland : Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
For the NCT Delhi : Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR
For the State of Mah. : Mr. Sachin Patil AOR, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv., Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv, Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv., Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv.
For the UT OF A & N Islands : Mr.Samir Ali Khan, AOR
For the State of Jharkhand : Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv, Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR, Ms Shelley Singh, Adv
For the State of Sikkim : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv., Mr. Nishant Verma, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mr. Simanta Kumar, Adv., Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR
For the State of M.P. : Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, DAG, Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, AOR, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv, Mr. Prakhar Srivastav, Adv., Ms. Sneh Bairwa, Adv.
For the H.C. of M.P. : Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR, Ms Sagun Srivastava Adv
For the U.T. of Chandigarh : Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR,
For the INT : Ms. Shobha Gupta, AOR, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Panigrahi, Adv, Jessy kurien, Adv, Mr. Nishant Bahuguna, Adv
For the Impleadment : Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR, Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv, Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv
For the Haryana : Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Dy. AG, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR, Mr. Paras Dutta, Adv., Mr. Bhanwar Jadon, Adv., Ms. Babita Mishra, Adv., Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Upadhayay, Adv., Ms. Adira A Nair, Adv, Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG, Mr.Gaurav Yadava Adv, Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen AOR,
Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR, Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv., Mr. Vinay Mathew, Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv, Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR
For the State of Assam : Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv., Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv.
For the St. of Arunachal Pradesj : Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR, Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv, Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR, Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Preeti Singh, AOR, Mr. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
For the St. of Rajasthan : Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr Adv, Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR, Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 24 and 39(f) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Child witnesses - The Supreme Court issued directions to facilitate recording of evidence from remote locations via video conferencing, emphasizing the best interests of child victims during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. (Paras 1-14)

(B) Evidence - Use of technology in courts - The Court mandated implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for video conferencing in trials involving children for testimony reception, ensuring child-friendly practices and infrastructure across districts. (Paras 6, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
This petition aimed to ensure that child witnesses can give evidence safely and conveniently during the pandemic by utilizing video conferencing to avoid the need for travel and potential exposure risks.

Findings of Court:
The Court agreed to the SOP proposed by the learned Amicus Curiae guaranteeing the effective use of technology for recording testimonies while protecting child witnesses.

Issues: The main issue was the method of recording testimonies of child victims of human trafficking and the adequacy of infrastructure for such procedures.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed the necessity of video conferencing to ensure the best interests of child witnesses and established that proper guidelines and infrastructure should be formed for its implementation.

Result: Directions issued for adopting the SOP for child witness testimonies in trials.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for child witness evidence during covid-19 (Para 1)
2. pilot project for video conferencing in child witness trials (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. (Para 5 , 6)
4. importance of child witness protection and rehabilitation (Para 7)
5. procedure for evidence recording via video conferencing (Para 8 , 9)
6. implementation and operational guidelines for rpcs (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

ORDER :

W.P.(Crl.) No. 274/2020

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction of a similar nature directing that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the recording of evidence of child victims/witnesses of human trafficking across Districts/States/Countries, including statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., be ordinarily undertaken via video-conferencing from a government facility within the local jurisdiction of the residence of such children;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction of a similar nature directing that the recording of statements/evidence of child witnesses/victims of trafficking across Districts/States/Countries via videoconferencing, even after the COVID-19 pandemic abates, either take place via a Commission or in the Court complex/CWC nearest to the child’s place of residence;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction of a similar nature directing the Respondents to ensure adequate infrastructure coverage in district courts across the country for the creation of a robust videoconferencing mechanism;

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction of a similar nature directing the Respondent No. 3 (the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights) to formulate guidelines for the recording of the testimonies and Section 164 , Cr.P.C. statements of such child witnesses/victims via video-conferencing during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, in view of the principle of “the best interests of the child”.”

2. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae, proposed a pilot project, after having detailed discussions with the counsel appearing for the Petitioners. For the purpose of the pilot project, the learned Amicus Curiae selected four cases. Out of these, trial had commenced in two cases with respect to which, it was requested that directions be given for examination of witnesses by video conferencing. SC No. 151 of 2019 (State v. Rahmatulla) arises out of FIR No. 612 of 2018 dated 05.12.2018, registered under Sections 75 /79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”), Sections 3 /3A/14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (“CLA”), Sections 16 /17/18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (“BLA”) and Sections 3 70/374 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (“IPC”). The brief facts of the said case are that on 05.12.2018, 11 children engaged in stitching work of suit/coat covers were rescued by a surprise rescue operation from premises in Kirawal Nagar, North East Delhi, PS Khajuri Khas. The rescued children were sent to their native places, i.e., Sitamarhi and East Champaran Districts of Bihar. The case was pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Karkadooma, New Delhi. The second case bearing Case No. 52 of 2019 ( State v. Mohd. Sherjahan ) relates to FIR No. 20 of 2019 registered in Jaipur under Sections 3 70(5)/344/374 of the IPC, Sections 3 /14 of the CLA and Sections 75 /79 of the JJ Act. The Anti-Human Trafficking Unit rescued four children on 08.01.2019, who were forced to make bangles in a confined room at Jaipur. They were not permitted to move outside, not given sufficient food and forced to work under threat. The rescued children were sent to their homes at Patna and Gaya in Bihar. The trial in the said case was due to be conducted in POCSO Court-2, Jaipur.

3. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the pilot project which would be in three stages, with the first stage focusing on assessment of state of infrastructure at the Court Point an