Allahabad High Court Issues Directions For Welfare Of Children Living In Prisons
The Court relied on Rule 339(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022, Right to Education Act, 2009, and Article 21-A to affirm that children in prison cannot be denied their fundamental right to education.
The Allahabad High Court has issued comprehensive directions to various state authorities to safeguard the rights of children residing in prisons with their incarcerated parents.
The Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized that prison walls cannot obstruct the fundamental rights of children, particularly their right to education and life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
While hearing the bail plea of a woman accused of murdering her stepchild, the Court underscored the State's duty to protect children living in prisons, asserting that neglecting their welfare is a failure of the system.
The Court, however, denied bail to the applicant but directed the Trial Court to expedite her case.
Advocate Rahul Upadhyay appeared for the applicant, and Advocate R.P.S. Chauhan appeared for the opposite party.
Court's Observations and Key Directives
The Court acknowledged that the applicant’s 5-year-old son had been residing in jail since her incarceration. It was argued that the child’s right to education under Article 21-A and other legal provisions were being violated. While the State Counsel claimed that efforts were being made to create a suitable environment for the child, the Court noted that children of imprisoned parents suffer collateral damage, which cannot be ignored.
“Fair administration of justice in bail jurisdiction commands this Court to ensure that adverse consequences accruing to the child as a result of rejection of the bail application of their parent (mother in this case) are mitigated and the rights of minor children of inmates residing in jails are protected,” the Court observed.
Right to Education for Children in Prisons
The Court relied on Rule 339(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022, Right to Education Act, 2009, and Article 21-A to affirm that children in prison cannot be denied their fundamental right to education. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was also cited to highlight that prison inmates must be educated about their children’s rights.
“Life of a child under Article 21 will not be defined by the adverse circumstances presented by fortuitous events, but their right to life will be determined by the luminous mandate of Article 21 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India,” the Court stated.
Recognizing that each child is unique, the Court directed that individual care plans be developed for children living in prisons, addressing their specific needs and potential.
Structured Development Programmes for Children
To shield children from the negative influences of prison life, the Court directed the State Government to create structured education, health, and wellness programmes. Key directions include:
1. Children must be housed separately from prisoners to prevent interaction with other inmates.
2. Mandatory coordination between Jail Authorities and the Child Welfare Committee upon the child’s entry into prison.
3. Ensuring that children attend preschools, kindergartens, or primary schools outside the prison premises.
4. Providing playgrounds, creches, and activity areas for children’s creative development.
5. Developing individual rehabilitation plans for each child, managed by the Child Welfare Committee and District Probation Officers.
Call for Better Coordination Among State Departments
The Court criticized the lack of coordination between various State departments, stating that bureaucratic inefficiencies were delaying the implementation of laws protecting children in prisons.
“Lack of coordination and cooperation between various State departments is obstructing the implementation of law and delaying the realization of rights of children in jails. This situation cannot go on and has to be addressed squarely and promptly,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., was directed to ensure immediate compliance with the Court’s directives by all relevant ministries and authorities, including the Departments of Law, Jails, Education, Medical and Health, and Women and Child Development.
Bail Denied, Trial to be Expedited
While issuing these directives, the Court denied bail to the applicant, considering the serious nature of the offense—the murder of her stepchild. However, the Trial Court was directed to expedite the applicant’s trial to ensure a swift conclusion to the case.
Cause Title: Rekha v. State of UP [Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:9210]
Click here to read/download the Order
