JUDGMENT ORDER dated 5-8-86 :— This application under Art. 32 of the Constitution has asked for release of children below the age of 16 years detained in jails within different State of the country, production of complete information of children in jails, information as to the existence of juvenile courts, homes and schools and for a direction that the Distric Judges should visit jails or sub-jails within their jurisdiction to ensure that children are properly looked after when in custody as also for a direction to the State Legal Aid Boards to appoint duty counsel to ensure availability of legal protection for children as and when the are involved in criminal cases and an proceeded against. The Union of India and all the States and Union Territories have been impleaded as respondents. 2. On September 24, 1985, notice was directed to all the respondents. A few of the respondent States filed counter-affidavits in response to the notice. The matter was adjourned on March 31, 1986, to April 15 1986, to enable the respondents who had no yet filed their affidavits to file such affidavits On April 15, 1986, after, hearing counsel who appeared for the parties this Court pointed out : "......It is an elementary requirement of any civilised society and it has been so provided in various statutes concerning children that children should not be confined to jail because incarceration in jail has a dehumanising effect and it is harmful to the growth and development of children. But even so the facts placed before us, which include the survey made by the Home Ministry and the Social Welfare Department show that a large number of children below the age of 16 years are confined in jails in various parts of the country." This Court directed the District Judges in the country to nominate the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other judicial Magistrate to visit the District Jail and Sub-Jails in their districts for the purpose of ascertaining how many children below the age of 16 years are confined in jail, what are the offences in respect of which they are charged, how many of them have been in detention - whether in the same jail or previously in any other jail - before being brought to the jail in question, whether they have been produced before the childrens Court and, if so, when and how many times and whether any legal assistance is provided to them. The Court also directed that "each District Judge will give utmost priority to this direction and the Superintendent of each jail in the district will provide full assistance to the District Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, in this behalf who will be entitled to inspect the registers of the jail visited by him as also any other document / documents which he may want to inspect and will also interview the children if he finds it necessary to do so for the purpose of gathering the correct information in case of any doubt. The District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, will submit report to this court within 10 weeks from today. It will also be stated in the report as to whether there are any childrens homes, Remand Homes or Observation Homes for children within his district and if there are, he will inspect such childrens homes, remand homes and observation homes for the purpose of ascertaining as to what are the conditions in which children are kept there and whether facilities for education or vocational training exist. Such reports will be submitted by each District Judge through the Registrars of the respective High Courts to the Registrar of this Court. Such reports will be submitted by each District Judge through the Registrars of the respective High Courts to the Registrar of this Court. Each State Government will also file affidavit stating as to how many childrens homes, remand homes and observation homes for children are in existence in the respective State and how many inmates are kept in such childrens homes remand home or observation homes. We would also direct the State Legal Aid & Advice Board in each State or any other Legal Aid Organisation existing in the State concerned, to send two lawyers to each jail within the State once in a week for the purpose of providing legal assistance to children below the age of 16 years who are confined in the jails." The writ petition was adjourned to July 17, 1986. 3. On April 24, 1986, the Court again made the following order : "We have adjourned the writ petition to 17-7-86 for hearing and final disposal but we feel that it would be desirable to take it up when the Bench sits in vacation. We would direct that the matter may be placed for final disposal before a Bench of this Court on 24-6-1986. We have granted two months time to the District Judges to make their reports vide our order dated 15-4-1986. Fresh intimation to this effect may be sent to the District Judges through the Registrars of the High Courts. We may reiterate that as soon as the reports are received copies thereof may be supplied to the Advocates during the vacation itself ........" The writ petition was thereafter listed on July 12, 1986, during the long vacation for hearing. The Court found that though reports from several District Judges had come in response to the earlier direction, yet several District Judges had not sent their reports. The Court observed : "It is a little surprising that though we gave directions long back directing the District Judges / Chief Judicial Magistrates to send their reports of inspection of not only the District Jails but also Sub-Jails in the districts on or before 10-6-86 (24-6-86), the reports have not yet come in respect of several Districts and particularly in respect of sub-jails in the Districts. We propose to give directions for expediting submission of these reports at the next hearing of the writ petition. We propose to give directions for expediting submission of these reports at the next hearing of the writ petition. We are very keen that the High Courts should be requested to moniter the submission of these reports and we have therefore requested the counsel appearing in the case to make constructive suggestions in that behalf." Six further weeks have passed beyond the time indicated in the order dated April 15, 1986, and even till this day analysis shows that several District Judges have not complied with the direction. This Court had intended that the reports of the District Judges would be sent to the Registry of this Court through the Registrars of the respective High Courts. This obviously meant that the Registrars of the High Courts were to ensure compliance. We are both concerned and surprised that a direction given by the apex Court has not been properly carried out by the District Judges who are an effective instrumentality in the hierarchy of the judicial system. Failure to submit the reports within the time set by the Court has required adjournment of the hearing of the writ petition on more than one occasion. We are equally surprised that the High Courts have remained aloof and indifferent and have never endeavoured to ensure submission of the reports by the District Judges within the time indicated in the order of this Court. We direct that every defaulting District Judge who has not yet submitted his report shall unfailingly comply with the direction and furnish the report by August 31, 1986, through his High Court and the Registrar of every High Court shall ensure that compliance with the present direction is made. 4. Article 39(f) of the Constitution provides that the State shall direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. Every State excepting Nagaland has a Childrens Act. It is a fact that some of the Acts have been in existence prior to inclusion of the aforesaid clause in Art. 39 by the amendment of 1976. Though the Acts are on the statute book, in some States the Act has not yet been brought into force. Every State excepting Nagaland has a Childrens Act. It is a fact that some of the Acts have been in existence prior to inclusion of the aforesaid clause in Art. 39 by the amendment of 1976. Though the Acts are on the statute book, in some States the Act has not yet been brought into force. This piece of legislation is for the fulfilment of a constitutional obligation and is a beneficial statute. Obviously the State Legislatures have enacted the law on being satisfied that the same is necessary in the interest of the society, particularly of children. There is hardly any justification for not enforcing the statute. For instance, in the case of Orissa though the Act is of 1982, for four years it has not been brought into force. Ordinarily it is a matter for the State Government to decide as to when a particular statute should be brought into force but in the present setting we think that it is appropriate that without delay every State should ensure that the Act is brought into force and administered in accordance with the provisions contained therein. Such of the States where the Act exists but has not beep brought into force should indicate by filing a proper affidavit by August 31, 1986, as to why the Act is not being brought into force in case by then the Act is still not in force. 5. Under the Jail Manuals prevalent in different States every jail has a nominated committee of visitors and invariably the District and Sessions Judge happens to be one of the visitors. The purpose of having visitors is to ensure that the provisions, in the Manual are strictly complied with so far as the convicts and the under-trial prisoners detained in jail are concerned. Being in jail results in curtailment of freedom. It is, therefore, necessary that the safeguards which are provided in the Manual should be strictly complied with and the prisoners should have the full benefit of the provisions contained in the Manual. Being in jail results in curtailment of freedom. It is, therefore, necessary that the safeguards which are provided in the Manual should be strictly complied with and the prisoners should have the full benefit of the provisions contained in the Manual. We direct that every District and Sessions Judge should visit the District Jail at least once in two months and in course of his visit he should take particular care about child prisoners, both convicts and under-trials and as and when he sees any infraction in regard to the children in the prison he should draw the attention of the Administration as also of his High Court. We hope and trust that as and when such reports are received in the High Court the same would be looked into and effective action would be taken thereupon. It is hardly necessary to point out that it is the obligation of the High Court to ensure that all persons in judicial custody within its jurisdiction are assured of acceptable living conditions. 6. This Court had made a direction to the State Legal Aid Boards to provide the facility of lawyers service in regard to under-trial children. No report has yet been received from any Board as regards action taken in this direction. The State Boards will now furnish the information also by August 31, 1986. 7. Certain other directions have been given earlier by this Court. All such directions shall be complied with and returns shall be furnished to this Court also by August, 31, 1986. We hope and trust that there would be strict compliance with these directions now made and there would be no occasion for any further direction to be made for the selfsame purpose. The writ application shall be placed for directions on September 8, 1986. 8. The petitioner, we must record, has undertaken real social service in bringing this matter before the Court. She has stated to us that she intends visiting different parts of the country with a view to gathering further information relevant to the matter and verifying the correctness of statements of facts made in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondent States. We are of the view that the petitioner should have access to information and should be permitted to visit jails, childrens homes, remand homes, observation homes, borstal schools and all institutions connected with housing of delinquent or destitute children. We are of the view that the petitioner should have access to information and should be permitted to visit jails, childrens homes, remand homes, observation homes, borstal schools and all institutions connected with housing of delinquent or destitute children. We would like to point out that this is not an adversary litigation and the petitioner need not be looked upon as an adversary. She has in fact volunteered to do what the State should have done. We expect that each State would extend to her every assistance she needs during her visit as aforesaid. We direct that the Union Government - respondent No. 1 - shall deposit a sum of rupees ten thousand for the time being within two weeks in the Registry of this Court which the petitioner can withdraw to meet her expenses. 9. We would like to make it clear that the information which the petitioner collects by visiting the childrens institutions in different States as indicated above is intended to be placed before this Court and utilised in this case and not intended for publication otherwise. ORDER (dated 13-8-86.) 10. We made an Order on 12th July, 1986 issuing various directions in regard to physically and mentally retarded children as also abandoned or destitute children who are lodged in various jails in the country for safecustody. We also directed the Director General of Doordarshan as also the Director General of All India Radio to give publicity seeking co-operation of non-governmental social service organisations in the task of rehabilitation of these children. We were extremely pained and anguished that these children should be kept in jail instead of being properly looked after, given adequate medical treatment and imparted training in various skills which would make them independent and self-reliant. Some years ago we came out with a National Policy for the Welfare of children which contained the following preambulatory declaration :- "The nations children are a supremely important asset. Their nurture and solicitude are our responsibility. Childrens programmes should find a prominent part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up to become robust citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy, endowed with the skill and motivations needed by society. Their nurture and solicitude are our responsibility. Childrens programmes should find a prominent part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up to become robust citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy, endowed with the skill and motivations needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of growth should be our aim, for this would serve our large purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice." If a child is a national asset, it is the duty of the State to look after the child with a view to ensuring full development of its personality. That is why all the statutes dealing with children provide that a child shall not be kept in jail. Even apart from this statutory prescription, it is elementary that a jail is hardly a place where a child should be kept. There can be no doubt that incarceration in jail would have the effect of dwarfing the development of the child, exposing him to baneful influences, coarsening his conscience and alienating him from the society. It is a matter of regret that despite statutory provisions and frequent exhortations by social scientists, there are still large number of children in different jails in the country as is now evident from the reports of the survey made by the District Judges pursuant to our order dated 15th April, 1986. Even where children are accused of offences, they must not be kept in jails. It is no answer on the part of the State to say that it has not got enough number of remand homes or observation homes or other places where children can be kept and that is why they are lodged in jails. It is also no answer on the part of the State to urge that the ward in the jail where the children are kept is separate from the ward in which the other prisoners are detained. It is the atmosphere of the jail which has a highly injurious effect on the mind of the child, estranging him from the society and breeding in him aversion bordering on hatred against a system which keeps him in jail. It is the atmosphere of the jail which has a highly injurious effect on the mind of the child, estranging him from the society and breeding in him aversion bordering on hatred against a system which keeps him in jail. We would therefore like once again to impress upon the State Governments that they must set up necessary remand homes and observation homes where children accused of an offence can be lodged pending investigation and trial. On no account should the children be kept in jail and if a State Government has not got sufficient accommodation in its remand homes or observation homes, the children should be released on bail instead of being subjected to incarceration in jail. 11. The problem of detention of children accused of an offence would become much more easy of solution if the investigation by the police and the trial by the Magistrate could be expedited. The report of survey made by District Judges show that in some places children have been in jail for quite long periods. We fail to see why investigation into offences alleged to have been committed by children cannot be completed quickly and equally why can the trial not take place within a reasonable time after the filing of the charge-sheet. Really speaking, the trial of children must take place in the Juvenile Courts and not in the regular criminal Courts. There are special provisions enacted in various statutes relating to children providing for trial by Juvenile Courts in accordance with a special procedure intended to safeguard the interest and welfare of children, but, we find that in many of the States there are no Juvenile Courts functioning at all and even where there are Juvenile Courts, they are nothing but a replica of the ordinary criminal Courts, only the label being changed. The same Magistrate who sits in the ordinary criminal court goes and sits in the Juvenile Court and mechanically tries cases against children. It is absolutely essential, and this is something which we wish to impress upon the State Governments with all the earnestness at our command, that they must set up Juvenile Courts, one in each district, and there must be a special cadre of Magistrates who must be suitably trained for dealing with cases against children. It is absolutely essential, and this is something which we wish to impress upon the State Governments with all the earnestness at our command, that they must set up Juvenile Courts, one in each district, and there must be a special cadre of Magistrates who must be suitably trained for dealing with cases against children. They may also do other criminal work, if the work of the Juvenile Court is not sufficient to engage them fully, but they must have proper and adequate training for dealing with cases against juveniles, because these cases require a different type of procedure and qualitatively a different kind of approach. 12. We would also direct that where a complaint is filed or first information report is lodged against a child below the age of 16 years for an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, the investigation shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the complaint or lodging of the First Information Report and if the investigation is not completed within this time, the case against the child must be treated as closed. If within three months, the charge-sheet is filed against the child in case of an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, the case must be tried and disposed of within a further period of 6 months at the outside and this period should be inclusive of the time taken up in committal proceedings, if any. We have already held in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1979) 3 SCR 169 , that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in Art. 21 of the Constitution. If an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental right to speedy trial would be violated unless, of course, the trial is held upon account of some interim order passed by a superior court or the accused is responsible for the delay in the trial of the case. The consequence of violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of the fundamental right. The consequence of violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of the fundamental right. One of the primary reasons why trial of criminal cases is delayed in the courts of Magistrates and Additional Sessions Judges is the total inadequacy of judge-strength and lack of satisfactory working conditions for Magistrates and Additional Sessions Judges. There are courts of Magistrates and Additional Sessions Judges where the workload is so heavy that it is just not possible to cope with the workload, unless there is increase in the strength of Magistrates and Additional Sessions Judges. There are instances where appointments of Magistrates and Additional Sessions Judges are held up for years and the courts have to work with depleted strength and this affects speedy trial of criminal cases. The Magistrates and Additional Sessions Judges are often not provided adequate staff and other facilities which would help improve their disposal of cases. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that every State Government must take necessary measures for the purpose of setting up adequate number of Courts, appointing requisite number of Judges and providing them the necessary facilities. It is also necessary to set up an Institute or Academy for training of Judicial Officers so that their efficiency may be improved and they may be able to regulate and control the flow of cases in their respective courts. The problem of arrears of criminal cases in the courts of Magistrates and Additional Sessions Judges has assumed rather disturbing proportions and it is a matter of grave urgency to which no State Government can afford to be oblivious. But, here, we are not concerned with the question of speedy trial for an accused who is not a child below the age of 16 years. That is a question which may have to be considered in some other case where this Court may be called upon to examine as to what is reasonable length of time for a trial beyond which the Court would regard the right to speedy trial as violated. That is a question which may have to be considered in some other case where this Court may be called upon to examine as to what is reasonable length of time for a trial beyond which the Court would regard the right to speedy trial as violated. So far as a child-accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years is concerned, we would regard a period of 3 months from the date of filing of the complaint or lodging of the First Information Report as the maximum time permissible for investigation and a period of 6 months from the filing of the charge-sheet as a reasonable period within which the trial of the child must be completed. If that is not done, the prosecution against the child would be liable to be quashed. We would direct every State Government to give effect to this principle or norm laid down by us in so far as any future cases are concerned, but so far as concerns pending cases relating to offences punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, we would direct every State Government to complete the investigation within a period of 3 months from today if the investigation has not already resulted in filing of charge-sheet and if a charge-sheet has been filed, the trial shall be completed within a period of 6 months from today and if it is not, the prosecution shall be quashed. 13. We have by our Order dated 5th August 1986 called upon the State Governments to bring into force and to implement vigorously the provisions of the Childrens Acts enacted in the various States. But we would suggest that instead of each State having its own Childrens Act different in procedure and content from the Childrens Act in other States, it would be desirable if the Central Government initiates Parliamentary Legislation on the subject, so that there is complete uniformity in regard to the various provisions relating to children in the entire territory of the country. The Childrens Act which may be enacted by Parliament should contain not only provisions for investigation and trial of offences against children below the age of 16 years but should also contain mandatory provisions for ensuring social, economic and psychological rehabilitation of the children who are either accused of offences or are abandoned or destitute or lost. The Childrens Act which may be enacted by Parliament should contain not only provisions for investigation and trial of offences against children below the age of 16 years but should also contain mandatory provisions for ensuring social, economic and psychological rehabilitation of the children who are either accused of offences or are abandoned or destitute or lost. Moreover, it is not enough merely to have legislation on the subject, but it is equally, if not more important to ensure that such legislation is implemented in all earnestness and mere lip sympathy is not paid to such legislation and justification for non-implementation is not pleaded on around of lack of finances on the part of the State. The greatest recompense which the State can get for expenditure on children is the building up of a powerful human resource ready to take its place in the forward march of the nation. 14. We have already given various directions by our orders dated 12th July 1986 and 5th August 1986. We have also in the meantime received reports of survey made by several District Judges. We shall take up these matters for consideration at the next hearing of the writ petition which shall take place on 1-9-1986. Order accordingly. For Citation : AIR 1986 SC 1773 =1986 Cr. L.J. 1736= (1986) 3 SCC 632 . Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.