The Bombay High Court strongly criticised the Maharashtra government, holding  that it cannot deny  financial help to institutions caring for vulnerable children while spending large amounts on welfare schemes  like the Ladki Bahin Yojana. The Aurangabad bench said that this  cannot be justified under the Constitution.

A division bench of Justices Kishore C Sant and Sushil M Ghodeswar said:

“When the State of Maharashtra is extending financial assistance to poor women in the State under several welfare schemes such as Ladki Bahin Yojana, it cannot, without any reasonable classification or justification, deny or delay financial aid to institutions catering to children in need of care and protection,”

The observations came while hearing petitions filed by employees working in unaided NGO-run children’s homes (Balgruhas). The petitioners included superintendents, counsellors, clerks, cooks, and caretakers. They demanded salary grants equal to those given in government-aided children’s homes, saying they perform the same work.

The Court said  the government must distribute its resources fairly and reasonably, as required under Article 14 of the Constitution.

State’s Duty Towards Children:

The bench further observed:

“The State is under higher constitutional obligation to prioritise the welfare, education, and rehabilitation of children, failing which the very object of the Juvenile Justice law would stand defeated and the larger societal interest would be seriously jeopardised,”

The Court then directed the Maharashtra government to frame a policy within six months for giving salary grants to eligible NGOs working under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

One Model Home in Every District:

The bench also expressed displeasure over the State’s failure to act despite directions issued by the Court in 2014. It additionally ordered:

“We feel that the State Government shall create or select or identify at least one children home run by voluntary organization in each district of the State which is having good capacity and also having well needed infrastructure, well educated and trained staff”.

Case Details:  Yuvraj Bhole & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors