Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN, J.
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION – Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9767/2009
Decided on : JULY 15, 2009
Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad & Mr. Varun Pathak, Advs. for UOI.
Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Rajat Katyal, Adv. for State. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. for NCPCR. Ms. Asha Menon, Member Secretary, DLSA with Mr. Harish Dudani, OSD for DLSA. AND + W.P.(CRL) 2069/2005 SAVE THE CHILDHOOD FOUNDATION ..... Petitioner Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sunita Tiwari & Mr. Bhuwan Ribhu, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad & Mr. Varun Pathak, Advs. for UOI. Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr. Rajat Katyal, Adv. for State. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. for NCPCR. Ms. Asha Menon, Member Secretary, DLSA with Mr. Harish Dudani, OSD for DLSA. AND W.P.(C) 15090/2006 Q.I.C. & A.C. None. versus MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT & ANR. ..... Respondents Through:Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for GNCTD. and Labour Department. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. for NCPCR. Ms. Asha Menon, Member Secretary, DLSA with Mr. Harish Dudani, OSD for DLSA. AND + W.P.(C) 4125/2007 ALL INDIA BHRASHTACHAR VIRODHI MORCHA (REGD.) ..... Petitioner Mr. Tiger Singh, Adv. with Ms. Jasbir Singh & Mr. Manmeet Singh, Advs. versus KAROL BAGH BANGIYA SWARAN SHILPI SAMITI (REGD.) & ORS. ..... Respondents Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv. for R-1. Ms. Deepak Tiwari, Adv. for Ms. Sujata Kashyap, Adv. for GNCT. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. with Mr. Hem Kumar, Adv. for MCD. Ms. Pinky Anand, Adv. with Ms. Aakanksha Munjhal, Adv. for R-7. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. for NCPCR. Ms. Asha Menon, Member Secretary, DLSA with Mr. Harish Dudani, OSD for DLSA. AND W.P.(C) 4161/2008 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..... Petitioner versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondents Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for GNCT. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. for NCPCR. Ms. Asha Menon, Member Secretary, DLSA with Mr. Harish Dudani, OSD for DLSA.
The judgment establishes the importance of implementing the Delhi Action Plan for Total Abolition of Child Labour and clarifies the applicability of different acts in the context of child labour, emphasizing the need for immediate implementation and addressing infrastructural limitations.
Headnote:
Child Labour - Delhi Action Plan for Total Abolition of Child Labour - Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000, Bonded Labour System (Abolition ) Act, 1976 - The judgment discusses the Delhi Action Plan for Total Abolition of Child Labour, which aims to eliminate child labour through two strategies: an Area Based Approach and an approach for unaccompanied migrant child labourers. The plan is based on various acts including the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, and outlines detailed procedures for rescue, rehabilitation, and social integration of child labourers. The court clarified the applicability of different acts and directed the implementation of the Action Plan with modifications.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment discusses the Delhi Action Plan for Total Abolition of Child Labour, which aims to eliminate child labour through two strategies: an Area Based Approach and an approach for unaccompanied migrant child labourers. The plan is based on various acts including the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, and outlines detailed procedures for rescue, rehabilitation, and social integration of child labourers.
Finding of the Court:
The court clarified the applicability of different acts and directed the implementation of the Action Plan with modifications. It also directed the Labour Department to begin implementing the plan by accommodating about 500 children every month, considering infrastructural limitations.
Issues: Interpretation of the applicability of different acts in the context of child labour, infrastructural limitations in implementing the Action Plan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the applicability of different acts, such as the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, and directed the implementation of the Action Plan with modifications. It also addressed infrastructural limitations by directing the Labour Department to accommodate about 500 children every month.
Final Decision: The court accepted the Delhi Action Plan for Total Abolition of Child Labour and directed all authorities concerned to immediately implement the same, with the Labour Department instructed to file its First Taken Report to the Court after six months.
MANMOHAN , J :
1. Today’s children constitute tomorrow’s future. To ensure a bright future of our children, we have to ensure that they are educated and not exploited.
2. In fact, children are the most vulnerable members of any society. They are entitled to special care and assistance because of their physical and mental immaturity. The problem is more complicated in developing countries like ours, where child labour exists in relationship with illiteracy and poverty.
3. To eliminate the menace of child labour and to effectuate the mandate of Articles 23, 24, 39, 45 and 47 of the Constitution, Supreme Court had given a large number of mandatory directions in “M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1997 SC 699”. One of the important directions was to direct an employer to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for having employed a child below the age of 14 years in hazardous work in contravention of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as „CLPRA, 1986). The appropriate Government was also directed to contribute a grant/deposit of Rs.5,000/- for each such child employed in a hazardous job. The said sum of Rs.25,000/- was to be deposited in a fund to be known as Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund and the income from such corpus was to be used for rehabilitation of the rescued child.
4. As the constitutional mandate and statutory provisions with regard to children were not being vigorously implemented and there was lack of coordination between different agencies of the Government of NCT of Delhi and other authorities, this Court, vide a detailed order dated 24th September, 2008 directed the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (hereinafter referred to as „National Commission?), to formulate a detailed Action Plan for strict enforcement and implementation of CLPRA, 1986 and other related legislations. The National Commission was directed to suggest
measures regarding education, health and financial support to the rescued children. The National Commission was also directed to suggest measures for timely recovery and proper utilization of funds collected under the Supreme Court?s direction in the aforesaid M.C. Mehta’s case.
5. The National Commission after holding consultation with various stakeholders and after conducting research and survey submitted to this Court a Delhi Action Plan for Total Abolition of Child Labour.
6. According to the National Commission, the child labour profile in Delhi is of two types namely, out-of-school children living with their parents in Delhi and migrant children from other states who have left their family behind.
7. The Action Plan for Total Abolition of Child Labour is based on two strategies. The first strategy is an „Area Based Approach’ for elimination of child labour, wherein all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years would be covered whether they are in school or out-of-school. The National Commission has proposed that this approach be initiated as a Pilot Project in North-West District of Delhi.
8. The second strategy is an approach to be adopted in the context of migrant child labour. It involves a process of identification, rescue, repatriation and rehabilitation of child labour. This strategy is proposed to be implemented as a Pilot Project in South Delhi District.
9. It is pertinent to mention that both the strategies in essence implement CLPRA, 1986, Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition ) Act, 1976.
10. One of the objectives of the Area Based Approach is to mobilize and build consensus on the issue of total abolition of child labour through universalisation of elementary education. The plan attains to mobilize and build consensus by holding public meetings, rallies and by involving Municipal Councilors, RWAs etc.
11. The Area Based Approach also aims to enroll all children in
