THE GOAN NETWORK
PANAJI
Expressing deep concern over the psychological condition of a group of children rescued from begging and separated from their families for more than six weeks, the High Court of Bombay at Goa on Tuesday appointed an independent child psychologist to assess them, supervise their interaction with their parents and facilitate their reintegration into their family and community.
The Division Bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Hiten Venegavkar passed the directions while hearing public interest litigation on children found begging at traffic signals across Goa, by Advocate Moses Pinto.
The order came after a report submitted by legal aid counsel Adv Shweta Parulekar, who was appointed by the court to represent the parents of the children, rescued from Mapusa bus stand on May 13.
During the marathon hearing, the court noted that the report revealed the children were ‘highly traumatised’ and unwilling to interact with anyone. It further observed that none of the children were allowed to meet their parents or family members since they were taken into custody on May 13 and placed either at Apna Ghar or Child Care Institutions (CCIs).
The Bench repeatedly questioned the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) North over the circumstances in which the children were found during the rescue operation and the absence of a rehabilitation mechanism.
“Who gave you the information about the Mapusa bus stand? Five children were found there.... Under what circumstances were they found?” the Bench asked, while seeking details and subsequent placement of the children.
Presenting her findings, Parulekar informed the court that she had met one child at Apna Ghar and visited the two CCIs where the remaining children were lodged.
She told the court that the eldest child, a 14-year-old boy and the eldest among four siblings, had “very strongly expressed” his desire to return to his parents and community and continue his education.
Although currently studying in Class IV, his parents stated that he had been studying in Class VI. The child had been continuously crying, regretted having landed in the present situation and said he had earlier been happy before being separated from his family. She informed the court that the boy would require further intervention before he could resume his education.
Parulekar further reported that the other two children, aged eight and six, were in a state of complete shock and were unable to communicate. She described them as deeply traumatised and said she was not permitted to have detailed interactions with them beyond speaking to their caregiver because of the limits of the CWC’s jurisdiction.
Taking serious note of the report, the Bench observed that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and the applicable Rules require the CWC to prepare, within 24 hours of a child being produced before it, a rehabilitation, restoration and reintegration plan. The court said the statutory mandate appeared not to have been followed.
The Bench also questioned why no psychologist or counsellor had evaluated the children immediately after their rescue.
“The CWC should take immediate action. A child psychologist must be appointed to assess the mental condition of each child and submit a report on the child's psychological state and specific needs, particularly considering the impact of separation from the parents,” it remarked.
The court further observed, “How is it that you do not have a counsellor? There has to be some form of rehabilitation.”
The Justices said even a three-year-old child should be evaluated within 24 hours of rescue to determine whether the child was undergoing trauma and whether interaction with parents should be facilitated.
“This is a tragedy. We are concerned about the children and want to do something. One month has already passed and that is deeply disturbing,” the Bench observed, while asking the CWC, “Where is your rehabilitation plan? What is your plan to reintegrate them?”
When the CWC informed the court that it had contacted its counterparts in Maharashtra and intended to rehabilitate the children, the Bench questioned the proposed course of action.
“How can you repatriate them when the grandmother is here, or the mother is here?” the Bench asked, adding the larger concern was preventing the children from returning to begging while their parents worked as daily wage labourers.
“Our question is how to keep the children out of begging while their parents are working. What mechanism do you have to ensure they do not return to begging? Prepare a report and submit it to the Bench. We are concerned about the wellbeing of the children,” the court directed the CWC.
Accepting the need for urgent psychological intervention, the High Court appointed Anuradha Kakodkar, retired Professor of Psychology at St Xavier's College, Mapusa, as an independent child psychologist to supervise interaction between the children and their families and facilitate their reintegration. She has been directed to interact with the children and their family members, record her observations and submit a sealed report before the next hearing.
The court also directed the Principal District Judge, North Goa, to make available the Mediation Centre at the District Court complex in Merces for the counselling sessions. The counselling process was held the same evening, with further sessions to be held if necessary.
The matter has now been posted for further hearing on July 6, while liberty has been granted to the parents to seek urgent circulation of the case if required.
