Children's homes: HC asks chief secy to explain non-compliance

The Bombay High Court today pulled up the Maharashtra government for its insensitivity towards improving the conditions at the homes of children and mentally challenged kids, and non-compliance of past orders.
A division bench of Justices A S Oka and P N Deshmukh directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit personally, explaining the delay in the compliance of directions passed by the court last year.
The bench was hearing a public interest litigation on the poor conditions at children's homes (shelter homes) and the homes for mentally challened children in the state, set up under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The court has taken up the case suo moto (on its own). In April 2017, it had passed several directions, saying it is the government's legal and constitutional obligation to set up adequate number of such homes and provide them with necessary infrastructure.
Upon reading the affidavits filed by the government today, the court said they show complete non-compliance of directions.
"The entire approach of the state government shows insensitivity and there is gross violation of court orders," the bench said.

Ideally this warrants issuance of a contempt of court notice, but the court was giving the government a chance to explain itself, the judges said.

"The state chief secretary...shall file a personal affidavit stating why there has been a delay in complying with our directions and also by when the same would be implemented," the court said.
While adjourning the hearing to March 9, the court said if it was not satisfied with the chief secretary's affidavit, it would consider it an "aggravated contempt".
There are 27 homes for mentally challenged children in Maharashtra.
In its April 2017 order, the high court had directed the government to ascertain, with the help of the Maharashtra State Coordination Committee for Child Protection, how many more such homes were required, and take steps to establish new homes.

The funds for such institutions were inadequate, sanctioned in an arbitrary manner, the court had said, asking the government to take a decision on increasing them.
No decision has been taken on increasing the grant amount yet, the judges noted.