SC imposes costs on 13 states, 2 UTs for not filling vacancies

0
171
Youth gets life term for killing girlfriend's parents
Youth gets life term for killing girlfriend's parents
SC imposes costs on 13 states, 2 UTs for not filling vacancies
SC imposes costs on 13 states, 2 UTs for not filling vacancies

Acting firmly, the Supreme Court has slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 each against 13 states and two Union territories for not filling up vacancies in their State Commission for Child Rights (SCCR), saying a central law must be adhered to.

A bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta noted that these states were in “clear violation” of section 18 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 which deals with appointment of a chairperson and other members of such a commission.

The bench imposed the fine on Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura and Uttarakhand and Union terrotories of Chandigarh and Delhi.

“Under the circumstances, these governments should fill up all the vacancies of the chairperson/members under the 2005 Act within four weeks…subject to payment of costs of Rs 50,000 to be deposited by each government within three weeks with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for utilisation in juvenile justice issues,” it said.

The court also said that if the appointments are not made, “we may require the presence of the secretary of the women and child development department in the government concerned to explain the difficulty in doing so and for violating the law”.

“We may record the fact that the statute referred to is a parliamentary law and the provisions thereof must be adhered to by the governments,” the bench said and posted the matter for hearing to July 11.

The court had earlier asked the Centre to ensure that the state commission for protection of child rights was in place in every state and Union territory.

The bench was hearing a PIL seeking implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act and its rules. The apex court had earlier questioned the functioning of the juvenile justice boards and had sought details of the pendency of cases, frequency of sittings, vacancy of posts and other related issues.

The court’s directions had come on a plea which was filed in 2005 by petitioner Sampurna Behrua about the governments’ apathy in implementing the welfare legislation.

( Source – PTI )

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *