State Cannot Deny Aid To Child Care Institutions Without Justification While It Runs Schemes Like Ladki Bahin Yojana: Bombay High Court
The Court observed that child care institutions established under the Juvenile Justice framework cannot be deprived of meaningful financial support where the State itself mandates qualified staff, structured rehabilitation services and statutory standards for care, protection and development of children.
The Bombay High Court has observed that the State of Maharashtra cannot deny or delay financial assistance to institutions catering to children in need of care and protection while simultaneously extending financial aid under various welfare schemes, such as the Ladki Bahin Yojana, without any reasonable classification or justification.
The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by employees working in child care institutions and Bal Gruhas run by unaided voluntary organisations and non-governmental organisations seeking directions to the State Government to sanction and release salary grants and to bring their service conditions at par with employees working in similar State-run institutions.
A Division Bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar observed: “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 Bench further observed: “The State is under a 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.”
Advocate N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar appeared for the petitioners. Additional Government Pleader Dr Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar appeared for the State authorities.
Background
The petitioners were employees working in various child homes and Bal Gruhas run by unaided NGOs registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. They were employed on posts such as Superintendent, Counsellor, Clerk, Caretaker and Cook.
The petitioners contended that the staffing pattern and pay scales for such institutions had already been prescribed by the State Government through Government Resolutions. However, despite recognition and regulation of these institutions under the Juvenile Justice framework, the State Government had not extended salary grants to employees working in these homes.
It was argued that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and subsequently the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, obligated the State to ensure proper care, treatment, education, development and rehabilitation of children housed in such institutions.
The petitioners also relied upon earlier judgments of the Bombay High Court where similarly situated employees working in child care institutions had been granted relief, and directions had been issued to the State Government to consider sanctioning salary grants.
The State Government opposed the petitions, contending that the NGOs had voluntarily undertaken to run such institutions and had themselves appointed the staff members. It was argued that the Government was already extending non-salary grants on a per-child basis and that the institutions were expected to generate funds independently through donations.
The State further contended that extending salary grants to all such institutions would impose a substantial financial burden upon the Government.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the statutory framework under the Juvenile Justice Act and observed that children’s homes established either by the State or through voluntary organisations are required to provide comprehensive care, including shelter, education, treatment, counselling, skill development and rehabilitation.
The Bench noted that such institutions necessarily require qualified, trained and experienced staff to discharge these statutory obligations.
The Court observed: “The creation of children’s homes would be an empty formality if the children admitted there are not provided proper environment, treatment, education, nourishment, skill development and all that is prescribed under the Act and Rules.”
The Bench further held that while NGOs may be managing such institutions, the State cannot evade its constitutional responsibilities under Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Constitution. “Such allocation of resources must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 14”, the Bench remarked.
The Court noted that previous directions issued by the High Court requiring the State Government to consider extending salary grants had not been effectively implemented, and the reasons assigned by the State for denying salary grants were “not appropriate and satisfying.”
Emphasising the importance of child welfare, the Court observed that children admitted to such institutions are among the most vulnerable sections of society and failure to provide them proper care and educational opportunities could expose them to socio-economic problems, including poverty, unemployment and crime.
The Bench quoted from Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2018) and reiterated that children’s rights are constitutional obligations and that the State cannot plead financial constraints or administrative difficulties in matters concerning child welfare.
The Court also referred to Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) and observed that where the State is under a constitutional or statutory obligation to ensure basic human dignity, it cannot avoid its responsibilities merely because implementation is being carried out through voluntary agencies.
The Bench observed that the ultimate responsibility to ensure compliance with welfare legislation continues to rest with the State. The Court thereafter stressed the necessity of creating properly equipped child care institutions with trained staff and adequate infrastructure in every district of the State.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court directed the State Government to consider framing an appropriate policy within six months for providing salary grants to deserving NGOs functioning strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Court observed that denial or delay of financial assistance to institutions catering to children in need of care and protection, despite extension of welfare benefits under other State schemes, would have to satisfy the constitutional test of reasonableness under Article 14.
The Bench expressed hope that the State Government would act positively and prioritise the welfare, education and rehabilitation of children in accordance with its constitutional obligations.
Cause Title: Yuvraj Santrao Bhole & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:20588-DB)