Forced pregnancy tests, CCTV surveillance: Bombay High Court takes suo motu note of abuse at children's home

The Bombay High Court on on July 8 took suo motu cognizance of media reports alleging ill-treatment of minor girls at a children’s home in the Cantonment area of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar after nine girls fled the facility on July 1 [The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. State of Maharashtra]

A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh, after reviewing newspaper reports and statements recorded by police, observed that despite repeated complaints by the children, the authorities failed to act meaningfully.

“After taking note of all these newspaper cuttings, it appears that the authorities are moving at a snail speed, may be with an intention to subside the burning issue. When the girls have taken such step and even tried to lodge the reports, it appears that they have not been allowed. Of course, this is our prima facie impression. The police authorities ought to have lodged the FIR when the minor citizens are subjected to some harassment or cruelty,” the Court said.

The suo moto action came following a disturbing incident in which nine girls broke out of the Vidyadeep Children’s Home, allegedly damaging property and carrying sticks and iron rods as they fled through city streets.

They were later apprehended near Bhagwan Mahavir Chowk after attempting to approach the District Legal Services Authority.

The media reports reviewed by the Court revealed that the girls faced harassment and intrusive surveillance, with CCTV cameras reportedly installed in their common room, allegedly under the pretext of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

The girls objected to the surveillance and allegedly damaged the cameras during their escape. It has also been alleged routine pregnancy tests were carried out whenever the girls complained of stomach aches.

Staff also allegedly pressured the children by warning that visitors would only be allowed for brief periods, while they remained under constant supervision. The Court noted that this raised the possibility of the girls being pressured or tutored before inspections.

The girls’ statements were recorded by police officers on July 3 and 4. After reviewing them, the bench remarked,

“We are really shocked with the treatment that was given and also the complaints those were made in respect of the Child Welfare Committee also. With a broad object the Child Welfare Committees have been established and they are supposed to act in the interest of the children in need of care and protection.”

The Court questioned why a First Information Report (FIR) was not registered on basis of these statements.

“Still the question remains that in spite of recording these statements on 3rd July 2025 and 4th July 2025, why the FIR was not registered. The possibility of destruction of evidence then cannot be ruled out and therefore, we have decided to take suo-motu cognizance of the entire episode,” the Court said.

It also took note of a submission that children’s home had been operating without a valid license since May 5, 2025. Although the children's home had applied for renewal, it had not yet been granted. Despite this, 80 minor girls continued to be housed at the facility.

The Court observed that keeping children there without authorisation was unlawful and noted that the Child Welfare Committee had failed in its duty to ensure a safe and legal environment.

"It appears that those 80 girls have been allowed to be kept in Vidyadeep Home without any authorization and prima facie we may observe that it was the job of the Child Welfare Committee to see that the safe environment is made available to such girls. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that he would place on record all those facts relating to this, upon getting compete instructions," it said.

Taking note of the seriousness of the matter, the Court ordered the case to be registered as a public interest litigation.

It appointed Senior Advocate PR Katneshwarkar as amicus curiae to assist the Bench in the proceedings.

The public prosecutor was given liberty to submit additional records from the police and child welfare departments.

Stressing that the matter is not adversarial but relates to the protection of children, the Court directed both departments to fully cooperate with the amicus and provide any information he may require.

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on July 14.

Public Prosecutor AB Girase appeared for the State.

[Read Order]