The Bombay High Court has ruled that the welfare of children in care institutions is a constitutional obligation of the State and cannot be treated as charity. The Court directed the Maharashtra government to frame a policy within six months to provide salary grants to employees working in children’s homes operated by unaided NGOs, provided these institutions comply with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The case was filed by employees working in NGO-run children’s homes, including roles such as superintendents, counsellors, caretakers, cooks, and clerical staff. They argued that despite government-prescribed staffing norms, they were not receiving salary grants or pay scales comparable to government employees. The State, however, maintained that NGOs voluntarily manage these homes and receive only non-salary grants, while salary payments remain their responsibility.
The Court observed that constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 21, and 39(f) impose a positive obligation on the State to ensure children are provided care, dignity, education, and protection from neglect. It emphasised that children’s homes cannot function effectively without adequately trained and fairly compensated staff, as poor staffing conditions directly affect the quality of care provided to vulnerable children.
While acknowledging that salary parity with government employees is not mandatory, the Court made it clear that the State cannot absolve itself of responsibility by outsourcing care to NGOs. It noted that welfare obligations under Directive Principles, when read with fundamental rights, require the State to ensure functional and effective child protection systems.
The judgment also referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings, including Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, which held that the State retains ultimate responsibility even when welfare services are delivered through voluntary organisations. The Court reinforced that constitutional duties toward children must be prioritised in public resource allocation.
The Court further highlighted inconsistencies in State policy, noting that Maharashtra already provides financial assistance under welfare schemes such as Ladki Bahin Yojana, and therefore cannot deny comparable support to institutions caring for children in need. It ruled that such selective allocation of funds must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 14.
Finally, the Court directed the State to identify or establish at least one well-functioning children’s home per district and ensure it is staffed by trained personnel. It ordered the government to formulate a structured salary grant policy within six months to support NGO-run institutions operating under the Juvenile Justice framework.
