The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling addressing the rights of children residing in prisons with their parents, dismissed the bail application of a woman accused of murdering her minor stepchild while simultaneously issuing wide-ranging directives to safeguard the welfare and educational rights of such children.
Justice Ajay Bhanot passed the order in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25993 of 2024, Smt. Rekha vs. State of U.P., observing that “rights of children who get confined to jail with their parents consequent to rejection of bail of the latter arise for consideration in this case.”
Background of the Case
The applicant, Smt. Rekha, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 363, 302, and 201 IPC at Police Station Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad. She has been in custody since October 16, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant murdered her minor stepchild and concealed the body in a water tank, later recovered on her pointing out.
Her counsel, Shri Rahul Upadhyay, argued that the applicant’s five-year-old daughter was compelled to reside with her in jail, thereby suffering a violation of her constitutional and statutory rights, including those under Article 21-A of the Constitution and the Right to Education Act, 2009.
Arguments and Observations
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Shri Ashok Mehta, submitted that the government is committed to ensuring a supportive environment for children residing in prisons and is taking steps to implement prior court directives for their welfare.
The Court emphasized that collateral damage inflicted upon children due to the incarceration of their parents cannot be ignored. The judgment stated:
Citing various constitutional provisions such as Articles 15(3), 21-A, 39(e) and (f), and 45, the Court stressed that the State has a duty to ensure education, health, and holistic development of such children. It also invoked international instruments like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and relied on precedents including Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P., and Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India.
“Neglect of rights of children who suffer from such default confinement in jail will reflect the failure of the State and inadequacy of the judicial process.”
The Court held that:
“Prison walls cannot obstruct the onrush of the fruits of Article 21 for children… The State has to create an environment and build support systems which facilitate access of children to their rights under Article 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India.”
Decision on Bail
On merits, the Court denied bail, noting:
“The applicant has been identified as the principal offender who murdered her minor stepchild… At this stage, no case for bail is made out.”
However, the Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and ensure adherence to Section 309 CrPC. The trial is to be completed preferably within one year.
Child Welfare Directions
Despite rejecting bail, the Court issued detailed directions for the welfare of the applicant’s daughter and similarly situated children:
- Individual Care Plan: The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (Gautam Budh Nagar), in coordination with the District Probation Officer, Ghaziabad, is to prepare a care plan within two months.
- School Admission: The child shall be admitted to a school located outside the prison premises.
- No Contact with Other Prisoners: Apart from her mother, the child is not to have any interaction with other inmates.
- Implementation Oversight: The CWC is to submit regular reports regarding implementation of the child care plan.
The Court underscored that denial of consent by inmate parents for their children’s education would be void and violative of Article 21-A.
Institutional and Systemic Directions
The Court also directed:
- The Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to convene inter-departmental meetings and formulate a comprehensive welfare programme for children residing in prisons.
- Jail authorities to separate such children from other inmates and coordinate with local administration for educational and health services.
- CWC, police, medical authorities, and probation officers to carry out specific roles in implementing rights guaranteed under the Constitution, JJ Act, and RTE Act.
- DLSA Secretaries to provide legal assistance and raise awareness among inmate parents about their children’s rights.
In a judgment interweaving constitutional mandates, international norms, and statutory protections, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed its role as “permanent guardian of children.” While rejecting bail to the applicant due to the gravity of the offence, the Court placed the child’s welfare at the center of the legal process, stating:
“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.”
