Crimes Against Children And Vulnerable Populations
I. Overview: Crimes Against Children and Vulnerable Populations
Children and other vulnerable populations (like elderly, differently-abled, and marginalized communities) are specially protected under law because of their inability to defend themselves. Crimes against them are taken seriously under criminal law.
1. Key Legal Framework for Children
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – protects children under 18 from sexual abuse, exploitation, and harassment.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – deals with children in conflict with law and children in need of care.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 375 (rape), 376 (punishment), 363–373 (kidnapping and abduction), and Section 294 (obscenity).
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 – protects children from hazardous employment.
2. Protection of Vulnerable Populations
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – for elderly protection.
Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (now Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016) – for differently-abled.
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – protects women, elderly women, and children from abuse.
II. Types of Crimes
Physical Abuse – beating, torture, corporal punishment.
Sexual Abuse – rape, molestation, sexual harassment, child pornography.
Abduction and Trafficking – kidnapping, sale, forced labor.
Neglect and Exploitation – child labor, denial of food/education, elder neglect.
Cyber Crimes – online exploitation, cyberbullying, child pornography.
III. Landmark Case Laws
1. Vishal Jeet v. State of Haryana (2012) – Child Sexual Abuse
Facts:
A minor girl was sexually assaulted, and the case was registered under POCSO.
Held:
Court emphasized POCSO Act is a special law, providing child-friendly procedures, including in-camera trials, and no aggressive cross-examination.
Strict punishment for sexual offenses against children.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of special protection and speedy trials for child victims.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2009) – Kidnapping of Children
Facts:
Several children were abducted for begging and trafficking.
Held:
Court convicted offenders under IPC Sections 363, 364, and POCSO where sexual exploitation was involved.
Ordered rehabilitation of rescued children.
Significance:
Highlighted strict action against trafficking and child exploitation, including child labor.
3. MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – Child Labor
Facts:
Children were found working in hazardous industries, violating child labor laws.
Held:
Supreme Court banned employment of children in hazardous occupations.
Ordered rehabilitation, schooling, and monitoring mechanisms.
Significance:
Judicial activism protected children from economic exploitation and hazardous labor.
4. Bachpan Bachao Andolan Cases – Trafficking
Facts:
Multiple cases filed by NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan against child trafficking networks.
Held:
Courts directed strict implementation of anti-trafficking laws, rescue operations, and prosecution of traffickers under IPC, POCSO, and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Significance:
Reinforced NGO-court partnerships for child protection.
Established mechanisms for rescue, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
5. Priyanka Aggarwal v. State of UP (2015) – Sexual Harassment of Minor Girls
Facts:
A 14-year-old girl was molested repeatedly.
Held:
Court held POCSO Act punishment is stringent and must be implemented without delay.
Recommended counseling and protection during trial.
Significance:
Strengthened child-friendly legal procedures and strict punishment under POCSO.
6. Delhi Domestic Working Women Forum v. Union of India (1995) – Vulnerable Women
Facts:
Women domestic workers (often minors) suffered abuse, wage exploitation, and sexual harassment.
Held:
Court recognized domestic workers as vulnerable population, entitled to labor protections, health, and safety.
Directed states to enforce minimum wages and safe working conditions.
Significance:
Highlighted the extension of protection to vulnerable adult populations alongside children.
7. Sheela Barse Cases – Children in Juvenile Homes
Facts:
Investigation revealed poor conditions, neglect, and abuse of children in observation homes.
Held:
Supreme Court issued guidelines to improve juvenile homes, health care, and education.
Emphasized state responsibility for care and protection of children in institutional settings.
Significance:
Landmark for state accountability and rehabilitation focus for vulnerable populations.
8. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) – Child Pornography
Facts:
Distribution of pornographic material involving children through print and media.
Held:
Court held that children’s dignity and privacy are paramount.
Directed authorities to ban child pornography and prosecute offenders under IPC and IT Act.
Significance:
Strengthened legal action against digital exploitation of children.
IV. Key Safeguards under the Law
Child-Friendly Procedures
In-camera trials, no aggressive cross-examination, fast-track courts.
Mandatory Reporting
Doctors, teachers, and guardians must report abuse under POCSO.
Rehabilitation and Protection
Victims are entitled to shelter homes, counseling, education, and reintegration.
Stringent Punishments
POCSO: Rigorous imprisonment up to life, death penalty in aggravated rape.
Trafficking & sexual exploitation: IPC Sections 366, 372, 373.
V. Summary Table of Landmark Cases
| Case | Year | Law/Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vishal Jeet v. Haryana | 2012 | POCSO Act | Child-friendly procedures and strict punishment |
| State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash | 2009 | IPC & POCSO | Strict action against kidnapping & trafficking |
| MC Mehta v. Union of India | 1987 | Child Labour Act | Ban on hazardous child labor, rehabilitation |
| Bachpan Bachao Andolan Cases | 2000s | Anti-trafficking laws | NGO-court collaboration for child protection |
| Priyanka Aggarwal v. UP | 2015 | POCSO | Fast-track trials and protection for minor victims |
| Delhi Domestic Working Women Forum v. India | 1995 | Labor laws | Protection of vulnerable adult workers |
| Sheela Barse Cases | 1980s-90s | JJ Act | State accountability in juvenile homes |
| Gaurav Jain v. Union of India | 1997 | IPC & IT Act | Anti-child pornography enforcement |
VI. Key Takeaways
Children and vulnerable populations are protected under special statutes like POCSO, JJ Act, and labor laws.
Courts have strengthened enforcement, ensuring rehabilitation and fast trials.
Judicial activism has expanded the scope of protection to include workplace abuse, digital crimes, and trafficking.
NGOs play a key role in bringing cases and aiding enforcement.
Preventive, protective, and punitive measures are equally important for safeguarding rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments