Jailed as juvenile, man awarded Rs.5 lakh compensation.

The Delhi High Court Friday directed the Delhi government to pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakh to a man who was jailed for eight years despite being a juvenile when he committed a murder.

According to law, juveniles cannot be punished for more than three years.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice G.P Mittal said: “In this case, the facts would reveal that the accused juvenile suffered incarceration for over eight years, nearly three times the maximum prescribed under the Act for sending a juvenile, found to have committed an offence, to a special home (which is three years)”.

The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Ramesh challenging a trial court order of 2004, which awarded life term to him and his friend for murdering his colleague.

“The report relied on by this court, which has not been challenged by the state, indicates that he was about 14-15 years as on the date of occurrence.”

“These facts reveal an extremely disturbing picture, pointing to wholesale violation of the procedure established by law, and illegal detention of Ramesh for 5 years. This failure was systemic, because neither the police nor the prosecution, nor the counsel or even the court, all of whom had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused, even thought it appropriate to consider, let alone explore the possibility of applying for determination of the age,” said Justice Bhat.

He observed that there is a clear violation of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ramesh and Subash, who was 23, after consuming liquor, had banged their colleague Mukesh’s head against a bench Nov 11, 2001. They then strangulated him to death with a pipe.

The High Court held Subash guilty.

The bench said: “The appellant (Subash) has been rightly held guilty. We do not find error or infirmity in the trial court judgement and order impugned in this appeal, accordingly, Subash’s appeal is dismissed.”

“Unfortunately, Ramesh has already spent eight years in jail far excess of the maximum period of three years, that too could have been spent by him in a special home as per section 15 (1) (g) of the juvenile Act,” the verdict said.

The bench, putting a question to itself, said: “What do we do? Should we again send Ramesh to the juvenile justice board to be dealt with or shall we end the proceedings here.”

“We are of the opinion that it would be great injustice to direct Ramesh to face an inquiry again before the board,” said the bench.

The bench, putting a stay on all the proceedings against Ramesh, directed the concerned department to quash all criminal cases lodged against him.

“Having regard to all these circumstances, this court directs the Delhi government to pay Rs.5 lakh to Ramesh within eight weeks’ time,” said verdict said, adding that Delhi government shall file an affidavit indicating compliance with these direction within ten weeks.

http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a212480.html

Anganwadi Centres in the Country

There were 10.13 lakh AWCs/mini-AWCs as on 31.3.2008 which have increased to 12.42 lakh as on 31.12.2010. The State-wise details of the AWCs/mini-AWCs during the last three years and current year are as follows:

Sl. No. State/UT

No. of Operational Anganwadi Centres

As on 31.12.2010

As on 31.3.2010

As on 31.3.2009

As on 31.3.2008

1

Andhra Pradesh

80709

79546

73022

70534

2

Arunachal Pradesh

6028

6028

4277

4277

3

Assam

55642

52275

36849

36849

4

Bihar

80211

80211

80211

80211

5

Chhattisgarh

34646

36211

34915

29373

6

Goa

1258

1212

1112

1112

7

Gujarat

48617

47726

43761

43195

8

Haryana

17445

17444

17444

17192

9

Himachal Pradesh

18352

18248

18248

18248

10

Jammu & Kashmir

25793

23375

18797

16409

11

Jharkhand

38310

38135

32134

31468

12

Karnataka

63306

62521

54665

54260

13

Kerala

32928

32232

32225

32115

14

Madhya Pradesh

90999

81610

69155

68367

15

Maharashtra

106231

86187

82625

76198

16

Manipur

9883

9654

7621

7621

17

Meghalaya

5110

3825

3337

3195

18

Mizoram

1980

1980

1682

1682

19

Nagaland

3455

3455

3194

3194

20

Orissa

69572

56498

41785

41697

21

Punjab

26656

26648

20169

20169

22

Rajasthan

57268

50923

50939

48363

23

Sikkim

1157

1003

984

984

24

Tamil Nadu

54439

54439

50433

47265

25

Tripura

9906

8895

7373

7351

26

Uttar Pradesh

170230

150986

150868

146769

27

Uttrakhand

11677

10713

9151

8909

28

West Bengal

111054

91247

89015

88086

29

A & N Islands

697

696

672

672

30

Chandigarh

420

370

370

370

31

Delhi

6606

6606

6106

6106

32

Dadra & N Haveli

267

253

253

219

33

Daman & Diu

102

102

102

102

34

Lakshadweep

107

87

87

87

35

Puducherry

688

688

688

688

All India

1241749

1142029

1044269

1013337

There are 498 Anganwadi Workers Training Centres (AWTCs) operational as on 31.12.2010. State-wise number of operational AWTCs during the last three years and current year (as on 31.12.2010) are given below:

Sl. No.

State/UT

Number of Operational AWTCs as on

31.03.2008

31.03.2009

31.03.2010

31.12.10

1

Andhra Pradesh

66

66

67

64

2

Arunachal Pradesh

5

5

5

5

3

Assam

40

45

45

26

4

Bihar

63

65

65

69

5

Chattisgarh

9

9

15

15

6

Goa

0

0

7

Gujarat

18

17

17

19

8

Haryana

10

10

10

10

9

Himachal Pradesh

4

4

4

4

10

J&K

8

8

8

17

11

Jharkhand

12

16

15

15

12

Karnataka

19

20

20

20

13

Kerala

15

13

13

13

14

Madhya Pradesh

25

25

25

25

15

Maharashtra

34

34

35

35

16

Manipur

4

4

4

4

17

Meghalaya

2

2

2

2

18

Mizoram

1

1

1

1

19

Nagaland

1

1

1

1

20

Orissa

27

26

26

26

21

Punjab

9

9

9

9

22

Rajasthan

12

12

12

12

23

Sikkim

1

1

1

1

24

Tamil Nadu

0

25

Tripura

6

5

5

5

26

Uttar Pradesh

66

49

66

66

27

Uttarakhand

7

7

7

7

28

West Bengal

30

30

30

21

29

Andaman & Nicobar

1

1

1

1

30

Chandigarh

0

0

0

31

Daman & Diu

0

0

0

32

D & NH

0

0

33

Delhi

5

5

5

5

34

Lakshdweep

0

0

35

Pondicherry

0

0

0

0

INDIA

500

490

514

498

Basic information is available in respect of 10.51 lakh AWCs/ mini-AWCs in 32 States/ UTs. According to this

  • 80.24% AWCs/ mini-AWC are in pucca buildings which includes 22% rented pucca buildings
  • 51.67% AWCs have drinking water facilities within the premises
  • 41.38% AWCs have toilet facilities and
  • 25.61% AWCs have separate kitchen.

State-wise details of Anganwadi Centres running from Kutcha/ Pucca buildings, AWCs having drinking water, toilet facilities and separate kitchen

Sl. No. State

Total AWCs reporting

% AWCs running from

% AWCs have Drinking Water

% AWCs have Toilet facility

% Kitchen

Kutcha buildings

Puccabuildings

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

1

Andhra Pradesh

73140

69.72%

30.28%

13.03%

7.61%

0.00%

2

Arunachal Pradesh

6028

100.00%

29.45%

50.48%

49.59%

3

Assam

36917

0.00%

100.00%

72.22%

45.13%

NA

4

Bihar

80211

93.98%

6.02%

6.02%

6.02%

6.02%

5

Chhattisgarh

38191

0.00%

100.00%

26.33%

13.70%

89.40%

6

Goa

1212

23.84%

76.16%

72.36%

21.12%

31.27%

7

Gujarat

43840

0.00%

100.00%

65.79%

44.57%

24.50%

8

Haryana

17253

0.00%

100.00%

38.91%

24.55%

7.15%

9

Himachal Pradesh

18248

20.74%

79.26%

54.55%

6.42%

6.42%

10

Jammu & Kashmir

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

11

Jharkhand

37655

0.00%

100.00%

22.57%

21.48%

21.48%

12

Karnataka

54656

7.53%

92.47%

46.29%

42.67%

43.61%

13

Kerala

32230

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

55.37%

55.37%

14

Madhya Pradesh

69238

21.84%

78.16%

23.75%

15.89%

0.00%

15

Maharashtra

84854

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

NA

16

Manipur

9652

100.00%

0.00%

7.10%

28.28%

27.66%

17

Meghalaya

3544

0.00%

100.00%

56.60%

62.08%

38.18%

18

Mizoram

1980

0.00%

100.00%

7.07%

70.51%

70.51%

19

Nagaland

3294

0.00%

100.00%

96.96%

12.14%

96.96%

20

Orissa

48893

13.06%

86.94%

48.79%

36.31%

38.83%

21

Punjab

21505

0.00%

100.00%

78.59%

43.45%

47.05%

22

Rajasthan

48358

4.43%

95.57%

47.09%

24.74%

35.34%

23

Sikkim

709

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

24

Tamil Nadu

54439

0.00%

100.00%

36.60%

48.55%

92.64%

25

Tripura

7379

55.13%

44.87%

55.39%

36.73%

37.82%

26

Uttar Pradesh

151448

0.43%

99.57%

87.18%

80.71%

5.00%

27

Uttrakhand

9182

0.00%

100.00%

46.47%

47.54%

0.00%

28

West Bengal

89247

37.25%

62.75%

50.42%

30.25%

53.78%

29

A & N Islands

674

77.38%

22.62%

100.00%

70.62%

38.58%

30

Chandigarh

470

0.00%

100.00%

78.72%

78.72%

18.94%

31

Delhi

6604

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

NA

32

Dadra & N Haveli

253

66.01%

33.99%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33

Daman & Diu

97

0.00%

100.00%

92.78%

41.24%

100.00%

34

Lakshadweep

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

35

Puducherry

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

Total

1051401

19.76%

80.24%

51.67%

41.38%

25.61%

* Government of NCT of Delhi informed that all AWCs are running in rented AWCs and drinking water & toilet facilities are available at all AWCs.
NA : Not reported

The ICDS Scheme does not provide for construction of AWCs building except in the North Eastern States. The States/UTs have been advised to tap funds for construction of AWC buildings and amenities such as toilets/ drinking water through convergence with other Plan Schemes of Central Government and State Governments/ UT Administration.

This information was given by Smt. Krishna Tirath, Minister of State for Women and Child Development in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today.

YSK: PM

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=70963

Protection of Child Rights

Section 17 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) Act, 2005 provides for the constitution of a State Commission for Protection of Child Right (SCPCR) in each State. The SCPCR has been constituted in eleven States, namely, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan and Sikkim.

Section 13 (1) (j) requires the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and SCPCR to inquire into complaints of violation of child rights. NCPCR has received 767 complaints of child abuse since its inception in 2007. These have been referred to the concerned authority for remedial action.

NCPCR has inquired into complaints of violation of child rights in the reality show, titled ‘Pati, Patni aur Woh’ and has made recommendations to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under Section 15 of the CPCR Act to establish, inter alia, an effective mechanism for introduction of a ‘pre-clearance system’ for the reality show; Electronic Media Monitoring Centre and the Inter-Ministerial Committee of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to make proactive interventions in taking cognizance of the reality shows affecting child rights and taking prompt measures to prevent their telecast; make special drives through electronic media to educate parents and the public about violation of child’s right to health, psyche, safety, education, recreation, leisure, etc. and to formulate detailed guidelines for safeguarding the rights of children in the entertainment industry.

Recommendations made by NCPCR to Ministry of Information and Broadcasting:

(i) Programs, like, ‘Pati Patni Aur Woh’ should not be aired in future on the following grounds:

a. The program violates the relevant rules of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. Such Rules are:- Rule 6 (1) (a) and Rule 6 (1) (l): Rule 6 (1) (a) Programme Code — Programme that offends against good taste or decency; and Rule 6 (1) (l): Programme Code — Programme that adversely impacts children and is in derogation to their rights to dignity.

b. The anxiety and stress, to which the infant children were exposed to, in the serial is unacceptable.

c. The focus of the programme was entertainment at the cost of the dignity of the children.

d. There were no exit provisions in the Contract so as to allow the parents of the children to take them out of the show at any time during production. The Contract was one sided with most of the obligations on the parents. The responsibilities and obligations placed on the production house and surrogate mothers, were comparatively less.

e. The psychologists, engaged by the Production house for assessing the children involved in the show, only made physical and mental assessment (as against psychological, emotional assessment) of the child. The long-term effects of separation on infant children from the parents and participation in such shows were not addressed and/or communicated to the parents.

f. On occasion, especially in the context of infant and/or very small children, even a parental consent is not a justification for a child`s participation in a reality show. They must be protected from all forms of physical, physiological or mental trauma, anxiety, violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, mal treatment, or exploitation, including sexual abuse while in the care of parents, legal guardians , or any other person who have the care of them, (as required under Article 19 (1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 which has been acceded to by India on 11December, 1992) and the Juvenile Justice Act.As mentioned earlier the separation of infants and young children involved in the programme from their patents ( natural care givers) even for a few minutes, causes anxiety and impacts upon their emotional well being and psyche.

(ii) The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should establish an effective mechanism in terms of legal provisions and administrative structure for introduction of a ‘pre-clearance system’ for the reality show. This pre-clearance system may involve a multidisciplinary expert panel which would assess any reality shows using children, and also, issue guidelines on the cut off age limit for the participation of children in such shows. This would entail screening participation of children even before the production of a program is done. These guidelines should also detail the procedures and processes that would need to be adhered in order to protect the best interests of any child.

(iii) The Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (EMMC) and the Inter-Ministerial Committee of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should make proactive interventions in taking cognizance of the reality shows affecting child rights and taking prompt measures to prevent their telecast, instead of waiting for the public to lodge complaints.

(iv) The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting should make special drives through electronic media (Door Darshan & All India Radio) and other available means for educating the parents and the public that the involvement/participation of children in reality shows to the extent it is violating their right to health and psyche, safety, education, recreation, leisure, etc. must be discouraged.

(v) A detailed guidelines need to be in place for safeguarding the rights of children in the entertainment industry after having broad-based consultations with prominent psychiatrists, psychologists, family therapists, child rights groups, legal experts, child development experts, etc.

(vi) The shooting sites / sets should be inspected by the multidisciplinary inspection panels constituted for the purpose by the Government and the producers and TV channels associations (for self-regulation). There should be a regulator to which the producers must provide prior information about the shooting of their programmes, especially, the place(s), schedules and particulars of the programme, the particulars of the persons (e.g., name, address, age, sex, qualification) proposed to be involved in the shootings and the safety measures / safeguards proposed to be taken.

(vii) There is need for consultation with child psychologists and experts about the minimum age of participation of children in reality shows and like to protect children’s rights even with a policy before production of the show.

This information was given by Smt. Krishna Tirath, Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Women and Child Development in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today.

YSK: PM
(Release ID :70963)

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=70963

Juvenile Justice Act; A Reformative Step for children in Conflict with Law

This article deals with ONLY one aspect of the Juvenile Justice Act; i.e.Children in Conflict with Law. “Children are the future of our country and it is the responsibility of every one to provide a sustainable support and ensure that they have a dignified and a safe environment to live in”.

J

uvenile Justice Act 2000 is the only beneficial legislation for the children in India, but there are various aspects of it in terms of its implementation; such as the machineries, the professionals involved in it, which play an important role in its implementation. There are various grey areas which are not spelt out in the legislation and the same is left with the competent authorities for interpretation. This interpretation is further governed by the Principles of Best Interest of the Child. The main objective is to provide a protective umbrella for all children in difficult circumstances. The Act covers all types of children below the age of 18 years, and further support to children till the age of 21 years.

History of Juvenile Justice.

The first legislation recognizing the need to cater to children came into force in the year 1850 this was the Apprentice Act which provided that children in the age group of 10-18 convicted by courts were intended to be provided with some vocational training which might help in their rehabilitation. It was followed by Reformatory Schools Act, 1897. The Indian Jail Committee (1919-1920) brought to the fore the vital need for a fair trial and treatment of children in conflict with law. Its recommendations prompted the enactment of the Children Act in Madras in 1920. This was followed by Bengal and Bombay Acts in 1922 and 1924 respectively.

The Central enactment, the Children Act, 1960 was passed to cater to the heads of the Union Territories. The Children Act 1986 was later amended in the year 1978. But the need of a uniform legislation regarding juvenile justice for the whole country had been expressed in various forums including Parliament but it could not be enacted on the ground that the subject matter of such legislation fell in the State List of the Constitution. To bring the operations of the juvenile justice system in the country in conformity with the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, Parliament exercised its power under Article 253 and on the 22nd August, 1986, the Juvenile Justice Bill, 1986 was introduced in the Lok Sabha. Later came the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act) 2000.

Juvenile Justice amended Act 2006.

Juvenile Justice Act 2000 (amended act 2006) is more elaborative than the 1986 Act and caters widely to two categories of children; children who have committed crimes and children who are in need of care and protection.

JJ Act 2000 lays special emphasis on the rehabilitation and social integration of the children. The Act has provided for institutional and non-institutional measures for care and protection of children. The act also envisages a system of partnerships with local communities and local governments to implement the legislation. The 2000 Act came into force to make an attempt to cover the lacunae which were existing in the existing laws.

JJ Act further provides for the establishment of children’s homes, for the care, treatment and protection of neglected and abandoned children. Institutional care still appears to be the largest service for the care of the destitute and orphan children. The JJ act also speaks for the setting up of Observation homes, Juvenile homes, Special homes, Aftercare homes and recognising fit persons/institutions for the temporary reception of both children in need of care and protection and that of children in conflict with law.

In order to deal with children in need of care and protection and children in conflict with law the JJ Act 2000 has authorised constitution of two competent authorities.

They are:

a. Child Welfare Committee (CWC) for children in need of care and protection (Section 29)

b.  Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for children in conflict with law. (Section 4).

The Child Welfare committee (CWC).

CWC is the sole authority constituted to deal with cases concerning children in need of care and protection for each district. The Committee is the final authority to dispose off cases pertaining to the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the children as well as to provide for their basic needs and safeguarding their human rights. The CWC does play an important role in catering to the needs of the children in conflict with law.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).

The JJB is an authority constituted to deal with matters concerning children who have committed crimes for each district or group of districts.

Once a crime is committed and the child is apprehended, the child within 24 hrs is produced before the JJB. Till the inquiry is pending the child is kept in an observation home, unless otherwise released on bail. On conviction, the child is sent to the special home or place of safety.

Under this Act, children in conflict with law has a right to bail; and granting a bail is mandatory, except under three instances;

i. If his release would bring him into association with any known criminals,

ii. Exposes him to moral, physical and psychological danger,

iii. His release would defeat the end of justice. Instead of being sent to a jail on conviction, the law takes a reformatory approach and the juvenile can be released on probation after advice and admonition or, placed in custody of special homes.

The act puts grave responsibilities on the Board and the Committee to look into the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the children who are in conflict with law, thus putting an obligation on the Board to be cautious that the child does not end up becoming a criminal in the future.

The Board ought to take into consideration about the time specification given by the Juvenile Justice Act 2000. If cases against children are allowed to remain pending for indefinite time beyond stipulated time frame. then it would lead to exploitation of the juvenile and his/her guardian by the player within the system. The Act puts the burden on the Board to keep a track of such cases and dispose them at the earliest.

Police

For the purpose of achieving such rehabilitation and social integration, elaborate procedures are prescribed under the Act. The Act under Section 63 provides that the Police Officers with adequate aptitude and appropriate training and orientation, be designated as a Juvenile or Child Welfare Officer, to handle the juvenile in coordination with the local Police.

The key responsibility of Police Officers, whether designated as a Juvenile or Child Welfare Officer or not, is that the Officer, should always keep in mind that a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection, is required to be handled gently and cannot be treated on par with persons, who are, otherwise, called criminals. A special juvenile polices unit needs to be opened by Goa police as envisaged under the JJ act 2000 and Rules 2007 therein.

As per the rule 11 (11) of the JJ act 2000 “where the punishment is less than 7 years the police are not suppose to register FIR in cases but it is learnt that the practice of filing a FIR even in petty cases is still carried on, which is a violation of the JJ Act. Even in theft of rupees 120/- the police have registered an FIR.

There are various cases where children are made the scape goat for increasing detection of crime at the police station levels. I have come across children during my legal intervention at the board who are apprehended and lodged in the observation home inspite of such children not involved in the crime. Till date a total number of 80 cases have been dealt most of it leading to acquittal with no convictions.

Probation Officer

In the said act Probation Officer’s role is very vital in providing effective implementation. Inorder to discharge his duties the Probation Officer ought to know the very fundamental principle underlying the Juvenile Justice Act. Primarily the Probation Officer plays duel role; one as a investigator and the other as a supervisor. Secondly; he has a vital role in reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration of the children who come within the purview of the Juvenile Justice Act.

State Government

Inorder to achieve the prime objective enshrined in the Juvenile Justice Act, the State Government is required to provide all the support system to ensure that the Board functions effectively. The State Government is under the obligation to provide logistic support to ensure all the provisions are enforced in its true spirit. It is not possible with the sole participation of Government to enforce the Act in its true spirit. The need for collaboration and partnership with stakeholders can alone make it viable for the enforcement of the Act in its true spirit and in toto. The Act also does put to a certain extent an onus on the legal fraternity to look into other aspects rather than solely legal. The functioning of all the stake holders revolves around the infrastructure and facilities provided by the State Government.

Conclusion

Juvenile justice is the only existing legislation on children, which purely and primarily deal with children in conflict with the law and their rehabilitation. This law has been designed to apply the principle of reformation rather than the punitive approach. It has been noted that the enforcement of this law in terms of protection of the children is weak.

The ultimate purpose of the Juvenile Justice amended Act, 2006 is repatriation, rehabilitation and social reintegration of children who are in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection. One of the crux of this Act is that the inquiries pertaining to all children in conflict with law should conclude within the period of 4 to 6 months as envisaged under the law and records to be destroyed after 7 years. Inspite of having such a comprehensive and beneficial legislation in operation, there still stands a risk of violations of Children’s Rights within the system.

Within the society there are other issues of serious nature which affects the children e. g drug use and addiction to tobacco has been one of the common factors among the children in conflict with law. This issue evolves around peer influence. This makes it important for the children to be counselled and treated before they become victims to other drugs and should be referred for detoxification.

The place where the children are housed is known as observation home. If one interprets the term “HOME”, it would mean love, protection, security and a family setup which would cater to the emotional and mental aspect, of a child.

There is no dearth of laws concerning the welfare and protection of children; but what we lack in is the logistical support required for its implementation. Juvenile Justice Act 2000 is a comprehensive legislation which provides elaborative procedure to be followed keeping the Principle of Best Interest in the forefront. Goa has witnessed an alarming increase in reporting of crimes committed by children and those committed against them. Concern over violation of child rights in such situations, is growing. While going through these provisions of the legislations, clearly lacks in the area of accountability of various stake holder and bodies constituted under the law. There is a need to come up with guidelines and proper understanding as to procedures to be followed.

Prevention is always better then cure. It is high time we tap the children who are vulnerable who can become the future criminals. This can surely be achieved by keeping in mind the best interest of the children and the Principle of restoration, rehabilitation and social reintegration. This can only be ensured with effective partnership with the civil society.

There is a need for greater sensitivity and care while dealing with children in conflict with law. This can be achieved by giving utmost importance to child welfare and protection, along with creating social responsibility and greater awareness among stake holders.

by Emidio Pinho; Advocate, Goa

adv.emidio@gmail.com

14-year-old girl ends life…

TNN 16 October 2009, 06:10am IST.

MAPUSA: A 14-year-old girl committed suicide by hanging herself to death in her house at Bela Vista Waddo, Tivim. The police said that the teen ended her life when her parents had gone to work. When the parents returned home in the afternoon, they saw their daughter hanging from the ceiling.

Right to be Loved….

EVERY child has the inherent right to love, to be loved and enjoy a decent family life where he can grow under the loving care of his parents. But it is sad that almost a large number of 18 million destitute and abandoned children are denied of this parental care. If the reports are to be relied each year around 50,000 children are abandoned by the parents and unwed mothers. The situation has not improved even though India is emerging as a major economic power. According to the United Nations Human Development report India has the highest infant mortality rate in the world. It has slipped from rank 128 to rank 134 in 2009 according to the report.

In this background adoption  of these children has attained wider proportion. Adoption is being looked as a great help in alleviation of the misery of these children. For these children the adoptive parents are the worthy substitutes for the biological parents. But this has its own constraints. While the government is yet to come out with a proper adoption policy, trafficking of these kids has also been a matter of concern. These two have been major impediments in helping these kids.

Read more …..