1

ITEM NO.2 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SMW (C) No(s). 6/2021

IN RE CHILDREN IN STREET SITUATIONS

([ONLY W.P.(CRL.) NO. 274 OF 2020 IS LISTED UNDER THIS ITEM] )

WITH
W.P.(Crl.) No. 274/2020 (PIL-W)
(IA No. 139277/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 10286/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 8311/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 97311/2020 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF)

Date : 01-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

For the parties: By Courts Motion

Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR (A.C.)

Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR
Mr. Abishek Jebaraj, Adv
Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Adv.
Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv
Ms. Priyanka Mali, Adv.
Saziya Mukadam, Adv.
Mr. Sambhav Gupta, Adv
Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv.
Ms. Aarti Krupa Kumar, Adv.
A. Reyna Shruti, Adv

FOR NCPCR Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR

Signature Not Verified Ms. Soumya Kapoor, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2022.02.01
17:18:33 IST
Reason: Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.
Mr. Manish, Adv.
 2

Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv.

Mr. S.S. Rebello, Adv.
Mr. M.k. Maroria, AOR

Union of India Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG

Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Rebello, Adv.
Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR
Mr. G.S. Makker,AOR

State of
Chhattisgarh Mr. S.C. Verma, Sr. Adv./Adv. General
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi AOR
Mr. Arjun Nanda,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav, Adv.

State of W.B. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.

Mr. Vishaal Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Parikshith,Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv.
Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv.
PLR Chambers & Co.

State of Telengana Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR

Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv
Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Adv.

State of Mizoram Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal,Adv

Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv
Ms. Manya Hasija,Adv
Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv
Mr. Akash Singh, Adv
Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR

State of Haryana Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, AAG

Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

State of Goa Mr. Ravindra A. Lokhande, Adv.

Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv
Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv.
Dr. Vidyottma Jha, Adv.

State of Goa Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, Adv.

Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, AOR

State of A.P. Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR

Mr. Polanki Gowtham,Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef,Adv.
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,Adv.
Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv.
 3

Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv

State of Bihar Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR

State of H.P. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, AOR

State of Manipur Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR

Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.

UT of Puducherry Mr. Aravindh S., AOR

Ms. C. Rubavathi Adv

Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv

Ms. Anu K Joy, Adv
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv

State of Tripura Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR

Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Borthakur, Adv.

State of Gujarat Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR

State of Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR

Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kynpham V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.

State of Punjab Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR

Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv
Mr. Karanvir Gogia,Adv
Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Varnika Gupta, Adv
Ms. Ashima Mandla,Adv

State of T.N. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S.,AOR

Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv.
Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Adv.

State of Nagaland Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR

Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.

NCT Delhi Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR

State of Mah. Mr. Sachin Patil AOR.

Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv
 4

Mr. Geo Joseph,Adv.

Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv.

UT OF A & N Mr.Samir Ali Khan, AOR

Islands

State of Jharkhand Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv

Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR
Ms Shelley Singh, Adv

State of Sikkim Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Verma, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Simanta Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR

State of M.P. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, DAG

Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, AOR.
Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv
Mr. Prakhar Srivastav, Adv.
Ms. Sneh Bairwa, Adv.

H.C. of M.P. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR

Ms Sagun Srivastava Adv

U.T. of Chandigarh Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR

INT Ms. Shobha Gupta, AOR

Mr. Rajendra Kumar Panigrahi, Adv
Jessy kurien, Adv
Mr. Nishant Bahuguna, Adv

For Impleadment Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR

Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv
Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv

Haryana Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Dy. AG

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR
Mr. Paras Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Bhanwar Jadon, Adv.
Ms. Babita Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Upadhayay, Adv.
Ms. Adira A Nair, Adv
 5

Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG

Mr.Gaurav Yadava Adv
Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen AOR

Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR

Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Mathew, Adv.

Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR

Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv

Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR

State of Assam Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR

Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv.

St. of Arunachal Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR

Pradesh Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv

Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR

Mr. G. Prakash, AOR

Preeti Singh, AOR

Mr. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR

St. of Rajasthan Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr Adv

Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR

Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR

Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR

Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

W.P.(Crl.) No. 274/2020

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
 6

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction of a

similar nature directing that during the COVID-19
pandemic, the recording of evidence of child
victims/witnesses of human trafficking across
Districts/States/Countries, including statements under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., be ordinarily undertaken via
video-conferencing from a government facility within the
local jurisdiction of the residence of such children;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction of a

similar nature directing that the recording of
statements/evidence of child witnesses/victims of
trafficking across Districts/States/Countries via video-
conferencing, even after the COVID-19 pandemic abates,
either take place via a Commission or in the Court
complex/CWC nearest to the child’s place of residence;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction of a

similar nature directing the Respondents to ensure
adequate infrastructure coverage in district courts
across the country for the creation of a robust video-
conferencing mechanism;

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ/direction of a

similar nature directing the Respondent No. 3 (the
National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights)
to formulate guidelines for the recording of the
testimonies and Section 164, Cr.P.C. statements of such
child witnesses/victims via video-conferencing during
and after the COVID-19 pandemic, in view of the
principle of “the best interests of the child”.”

2. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae, proposed a

 7

pilot project, after having detailed discussions with the

counsel appearing for the Petitioners. For the purpose of the

pilot project, the learned Amicus Curiae selected four cases.

Out of these, trial had commenced in two cases with respect

to which, it was requested that directions be given for

examination of witnesses by video conferencing. SC No. 151 of

2019 (State v. Rahmatulla) arises out of FIR No. 612 of 2018

dated 05.12.2018, registered under Sections 75/79 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ

Act”), Sections 3/3A/14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour

(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (“CLA”), Sections

16/17/18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976

(“BLA”) and Sections 370/374 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(“IPC”). The brief facts of the said case are that on

05.12.2018, 11 children engaged in stitching work of suit/ coat

covers were rescued by a surprise rescue operation from

premises in Kirawal Nagar, North East Delhi, PS Khajuri Khas.

The rescued children were sent to their native places, i.e.,

Sitamarhi and East Champaran Districts of Bihar. The case was

pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Karkadooma,

New Delhi. The second case bearing Case No. 52 of 2019

(State v. Mohd. Sherjahan ) relates to FIR No. 20 of 2019

 8

registered in Jaipur under Sections 370(5)/344/374 of the IPC,

Sections 3/14 of the CLA and Sections 75/79 of the JJ Act. The

Anti-Human Trafficking Unit rescued four children on

08.01.2019, who were forced to make bangles in a confined

room at Jaipur. They were not permitted to move outside, not

given sufficient food and forced to work under threat. The

rescued children were sent to their homes at Patna and Gaya

in Bihar. The trial in the said case was due to be conducted in

POCSO Court-2, Jaipur.

3. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the pilot project

which would be in three stages, with the first stage focusing

on assessment of state of infrastructure at the Court Point and

the Remote Point. The Court Point is in the cities or places

where the trial has to take place and the Remote Point is the

district / Taluk court complex or the office of the District Legal

Services Authority near the place of residence of the victims /

witnesses. Availability of necessary equipment for video

conferencing, along with other facilities integral to the

process, was to be ascertained in the first stage. The second

stage involved the Judge at the Court Point fixing a date for

examination of the witnesses and thereafter, issuing summons

to the witnesses. The suggestion made by the learned Amicus

 9

Curiae is that through the summons, the witnesses be

intimated about (i) the address of the Remote Point and date

and time of hearing; (ii) name, contact details and a brief

explanation of the role of the Remote Point Coordinator

(“RPC”); and (iii) the requirement to carry a proof of

identification. The third stage pertained to the actual

examination of the child witnesses at the Remote Point and

the procedures to be followed to ensure that the witnesses are

examined in camera and without any influence.

4. After being satisfied with the trial run of examination of

child witnesses at remote points, the learned Amicus Curiae in

consultation with Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Petitioners, submitted a draft Standard

Operating Procedure (“SOP”), with five stages, on 12.04.2021.

By order dated 26.10.2021, this Court directed the draft SOP

to be served on all the State Governments / Union Territories

as well as the High Courts for their comments. After receiving

responses from the High Courts, the learned Amicus Curiae

submitted a note with a modified draft SOP for recording

evidence of children through video conferencing. The draft

SOP as suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae is as under:

“1. It is suggested that testimony of children, who are

 10

victims of inter-state/inter-district child trafficking, is

recorded through video conferencing either at the video
conferencing room of the court complex in the district or
vulnerable witness room in the court complex of the
district or the office of DLSA in the district where the
child is residing.1

2. To facilitate the above, it is prayed that the Ld.

District Judges of all districts may ascertain the
availability of video conferencing facility in the
district/Taluk court complex or DLSA office and
communicate the same to the jurisdictional High Court.
The High Court may be requested to place the said
information on its website on or before 30.04.2022.
Further, it is prayed that efforts should be made to
ensure that such video-conferencing
infrastructure/facility is created in every district,
especially in those states where the incidence of child
trafficking cases is high.

3. The Secretary, DLSA of the district can be requested

to be the Remote Point Coordinator (RPC) for recording of
the testimony of child witnesses. However, if the
Chairman of the DLSA considers necessary or desirable,
he/she may appoint a Retired judicial Officer as a
Remote Point Coordinator. It is prayed that the Hon’ble
High Courts may place the aforesaid information i.e. the
names and contact details of the RPC of each district on
the website alongwith the information in para 2 above.

4. When an offence of inter-state/inter-district child

trafficking is taken up for trial by a Court, and if the
Court point and the remote point have video
 11

conferencing facilities, the Trial Court should ordinarily

give preference to examination of the child witness
through video conferencing.
5. The authorized officer at the Court Point may get in
touch with the RPC at the Remote Point and work out all
modalities for recording of the child witness statement
through video conferencing.

6. If video conferencing is feasible, a date and time be

fixed by the trial court for examination of the
witness(es). Summons may be issued to the child
witness(es) to present himself/herself for evidence
before the RPC. The summons may be served in addition
through the local process server of the remote point. The
witness would be required to come with identification
documents. The summons would also have the name
and contact details of the RPC at the Remote Point and
would also mention that the witness can take help of
legal aid or other assistance through the Secretary,
District Legal Service Authority, if required.

7. The child witness shall be entitled to the presence of

a support person as defined in the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 or any other
applicable laws/guidelines or as allowed by the Trial
Court. Further, best practices that are required to be
followed in recording the evidence of child witnesses
should continue to be followed even during the recording
of the testimony through video conferencing. These
include, ensuring that the child witness is provided diet
money on the basis of the distance travelled by him or
her to reach the remote point, the presence of a police
officer at the remote point to ensure that the chid
 12

witness does not come in contact with the accused (if

out on bail) or any relative of the accused, and any other
best practice required by the law/relevant
guidelines/being followed by the States.

8. Copy of documents, if any, required to be marked or

shown to the witness may be transmitted by the Court
electronically to the RPC. The RPC at the Remote Point
would assist in examination of the witness and ensure
that no tutoring takes place and no unauthorized person
or recording device is present in the room.

9. The RPC may take all measures possible and shall

seek the assistance of the support person to ensure that
the child witness is comfortable. Questions posed by the
Public Prosecutor/Defense Counsel may be put to the Ld.
Trial Judge, who in turn will put them to the witness and
the Trial Court would record the testimony of the
witness. The RPC may help with translation or take the
assistance of a translator/special educator if required or
render any other assistance which the Learned Trial
Court may require.

10. On completion of recording of evidence, the

deposition will be sent by the Trial Court on email to the
RPC at the Remote Point who shall take a print-out and
read the same out to the witness. After ascertaining the
deposition is correct and verified as under law including
the affixation of the child’s thumb impression/signature,
the RPC may certify the same and send the deposition
back, in a secure manner, to the Trial Court by Speed
Post and by electronic means as permitted by law. An
original may also be kept by RPC in case the Speed Post
 13

is misplaced for some reason.

11. Whenever a Trial Court proposes to record the

testimony of a child witness, who is residing in another
State, an intimation of the same should also be given to
the Registrar of the High Court of the Court point. The
Ld. Registrar may intimate the same to the Ld. Registrar
of the High Court of the Remote Point with a request to
render all assistance possible for recording of the
testimony of the child.

12. This Standard Operating Procedure is only a broad

guideline. The method and manner of recording of
testimony be dependent upon the video conferencing
rules framed by the respective High Courts, which would
be kept in mind while recording the testimony of the
child witness. It should be kept in mind that the
recording of the testimony should be done expeditiously,
without undue delay.
1
It can also be done at Taluk level as in some cases, video
conferencing room can be available in a court complex at
Taluk level or Sub Divisional level.”

5. Article 24 of the Constitution of India prohibits

employment of a child below the age of 14 years in any

factory or mine. Article 39(f) of the Constitution obligates the

State to provide opportunities and facilities for children to

develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and

dignity and to ensure that childhood and youth are protected

against exploitation and against moral and material

 14

abandonment. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of

Child stresses the need for protection of children from violence

and exploitation. The CLA was introduced with the intention to

ban the employment of children, i.e., those who have not

completed their fourteenth year, in specified occupations and

processes and to lay down enhanced penalties for

employment of children in violation of the provisions of the

said Act. Section 3 thereof, as amended with effect from

01.09.2016, imposes a bar on employment of a child in any

occupation or process, except where children help their

families or family enterprises or work as artists in the audio-

visual entertainment industry and where such work does not

affect their school education. The Government of India, by a

resolution dated 26.04.2013, adopted the National Policy for

Children, 2013 (“2013 Policy”). The 2013 Policy was made to

guide and inform all laws, policies, plans and programmes

affecting children. According to the 2013 Policy, the best

interest of the children is a primary concern in all decisions

and actions affecting the child, whether taken by legislative

bodies, courts of law, administrative authorities, public,

private, social, religious or cultural institutions. Further, the

State committed to ensure that all out-of-school children such

 15

as child labourers, migrant children, trafficked children,

children of migrant labour, street children, child victims of

alcohol and substance abuse, children in areas in civil unrest,

orphans, children with disability (mental and physical),

children with chronic ailments, married children, children of

manual scavengers, children of sex workers, children of

prisoners, etc. are tracked, rescued, rehabilitated and have

access to their right to education.

6. Taking note of employment of children in fire-cracker

factories of Sivakasi, Tamilnadu, this Court in M.C. Mehta v.

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.1 issued the following directions

to the State Governments:

“33. To give shape to the aforesaid directions, we

require the States concerned to do the following:

(1) A survey would be made of the aforesaid type of

child labour which would be completed within six months
from today.

(2) To start with, work could be taken up regarding those

employments which have been mentioned in Article 24,
which may be regarded as core sector, to determine
which hazardous aspect of the employment would be
taken as criterion. The most hazardous employment may

1 (1996) 6 SCC 756

 16

rank first in priority, to be followed by comparatively less

hazardous and so on. It may be mentioned here that the
National Child Labour Policy as announced by the
Government of India has already identified some
industries for priority action and the industries identified
are as below:

The match industry in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu.

The diamond polishing industry in Surat, Gujarat.

The precious stone polishing industry in Jaipur,

Rajasthan.

The glass industry in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.

The brass-ware industry in Moradabad, Uttar

Pradesh.

The handmade carpet industry in Mirzapur-

Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh.

The lock-making industry in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.

The slate industry in Markapur, Andhra Pradesh.

The slate industry in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh.

(3) The employment to be given as per our direction

could be dovetailed to other assured employment. On
this being done, it is apparent that our direction would
not require generation of much additional employment.

(4) The employment so given could as well be the

 17

industry where the child is employed, a public

undertaking and would be manual in nature inasmuch as
the child in question must be engaged in doing manual
work. The undertaking chosen for employment shall be
one which is nearest to the place of residence of the
family.

(5) In those cases where alternative employment would

not be made available as aforesaid, the parent/guardian
of the child concerned would be paid the income which
would be earned on the corpus, which would be a sum of
Rs 25,000 for each child, every month. The employment
given or payment made would cease to be operative if
the child would not be sent by the parent/guardian for
education.

(6) On discontinuation of the employment of the child,

his education would be assured in suitable institution
with a view to make him a better citizen. It may be
pointed out that Article 45 mandates compulsory
education for all children until they complete the age of
14 years; it is also required to be free. It would be the
duty of the Inspectors to see that this call of the
Constitution is carried out.

(7) A district could be the unit of collection so that the

executive head of the district keeps a watchful eye on
the work of the Inspectors. Further, in view of the
magnitude of the task, a separate cell in the Labour
Department of the appropriate Government would be
 18

created. Monitoring of the scheme would also be

necessary and the Secretary of the Department could
perhaps do this work. Overall monitoring by the Ministry
of Labour, Government of India, would be beneficial and
worthwhile.

(8) The Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, Government

of India would apprise this Court within one year from
today about the compliance of aforesaid directions. If the
petitioner would need any further or other order in the
light of the compliance report, it would be open to him to
do so.

(9) We should also like to observe that on the directions

given being carried out, penal provision contained in the
aforenoted 1986 Act would be used where employment
of child labour, prohibited by the Act, would be found.

(10) Insofar as the non-hazardous jobs are concerned,

the Inspector shall have to see that the working hours of
the child are not more than four to six hours a day and it
receives education at least for two hours each day. It
would also be seen that the entire cost of education is
borne by the employer.”

7. The International Labour Organization proposed 2021 as

the International Year for the elimination of Child Labour. The

 19

International Year was adopted by the UN General Assembly.

All the member states were asked to take effective measures

to eradicate forced labour and human trafficking. The number

of children labourers has risen in the last four years globally.

According to data released by agencies the problem of Child

Labour in India is persisting inspite of the best efforts of the

Government. Covid-19 had a devastating effect on children

from the lower strata of society who have been suffering due

to the loss of employment of their parents & closure of schools

which has forced them into labour for survival. We have

highlighted the problem for the purpose of reiterating the

importance of protection of children and rescuing and

rehabilitating them.

8. At present, we are concerned with obviating difficulties to

victims of trafficking with respect to travelling long distances

for the purpose of giving evidence in trial courts. Though, the

public-spirited Petitioners were concerned with the safety of

the trafficked children being forced to travel long distances for

giving evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic, we are of the

opinion that the suggestions made by the learned Amicus

Curiae, in consultation with Ms. Shenoy, relating to the SOP

should be put in practice as a regular feature. The said

 20

procedure need not be restricted only to the period affected

by the COVID-19 pandemic. The permissibility of recording

evidence through video conferencing has been considered by

this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai 2,

Sakshi v. Union of India & Ors. 3 as well as Eera v. State

(NCT of Delhi) & Anr.4. In Sampurna Behura v. Union of

India & Ors.5, this Court encouraged the use of technologies

in court proceedings by stating as under:

“77. The use of technology, both by the JJBs as well as by

the CWCs is extremely important and we are
disheartened to note from the affidavits and submissions
made by MWCD that there is an acute shortage of
computers and peripherals with the JJBs and CWCs.
Technology is important not only for the effective
functioning of the JJBs and CWCs, but also to deal with
issues that would arise from time to time concerning the
tracing and tracking of missing children, the rescue of
children working in hazardous industries, trafficked
children, children who leave the Child Care Institutions,
victims of child sexual abuse and follow-up action, among
several other requirements. It is well known that our
country is a technological powerhouse and if we are
unable to take advantage of the resources available with
us and fully utilise the benefits of technology through
computers and the internet for the benefit of children, our
status as a technological powerhouse would be in
2 (2003) 4 SCC 601
3 (2004) 5 SCC 518
4 (2017) 15 SCC 133
5 (2018) 4 SCC 433
 21

jeopardy and would remain only on paper. Data,

particularly of the magnitude of the kind that we are
concerned with, can be easily collected through the use
of computers and the internet. This would be of great
assistance in planning and management of resources and
MWCD and others concerned with child rights must take
full advantage of this.

78. That apart, there can be no doubt that the use of

computers and peripherals would make an immense
contribution to the administrative functioning of the JJBs
and CWCs. Both the Government of India and the State
Governments need to look into this and provide
necessary software and hardware to the JJBs and the
CWCs for obvious reasons. We were informed by the
learned counsel that the police authorities in Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh in consultation with the Juvenile
Justice Committee of the High Court have made
considerable use of information and communication
technology and we are of the view that innovative steps
must be encouraged. Similarly, the use of
videoconferencing could also be considered in
appropriate cases where some inconvenience to the
juvenile in conflict with law necessitates the use of
videoconferencing facilities.”

9. We have carefully examined the draft SOP which contains

minute details about steps to be taken for recording the

testimony of child witnesses at Remote Points. Responses

have been filed by the High Courts. There is no objection

taken by any High Court to the SOP being put in practice

 22

immediately. We direct that the SOP, as has been reproduced

above, shall be followed in all criminal trials where child

witnesses, not residing near Court Points, are examined and

not physically in the courts where the trial is conducted. We

direct the RPCs to ensure that child-friendly practices are

adopted during the examination of the witnesses.

10. A direction was sought by the learned Amicus Curiae

regarding the source of payment of honorarium to the RPCs.

We are informed by the learned Amicus Curiae that a daily

honorarium of Rs.1500/- was paid to the RPCs who were

appointed as such during the pilot project. For the present, we

are of the opinion that the RPCs shall be paid Rs.1500/- per

day as honorarium. We are in agreement with Ms. Shenoy

that Section 312 of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the

Criminal Court to direct the Government to pay the expenses

of the witnesses attending any inquiry, trial or other

proceedings.

11. We requested learned Amicus Curiae who also appeared

on behalf of NALSA, to get instructions regarding the

willingness of NALSA to bear the expenditure relating to the

payment to be made to the Remote Point Coordinator. Learned

Amicus Curiae on instructions from NALSA suggested the

 23

following :

(1) NALSA would pay Rs.1,500/- per day to the

Remote Point Coordinator (RPC) whenever the RPC is

required for the purposes of examination of the child

witness(es) through video conferencing.

(2) NALSA would provide legal assistance to the

child on the days when he/she comes from his/her

examination, if the child is otherwise not represented

by a counsel.

12. We appreciate the stand taken by NALSA to strengthen

the video conferencing facilities in DLSA offices in the States

of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Odisha and Assam, to

begin with to ensure that in case video conferencing facility in

the court complex is not available, video conferencing facility

in DLSA office can be utilized for recording of the evidence of

the child witness.

13. NALSA has also come forward to place the details

regarding the availability of video conferencing facility for

recording of statement of child witnesses in the offices of

DLSA and court complex and the name and contact number of

the RPC on its website and the website of State Legal

Services Authority (SLSA) by 30.04.2022.

 24

14. The concerned judicial officer at the Remote Point and the

trial Court shall ensure that the recording of evidence shall be

in camera wherever necessary.

List this matter on 2nd May, 2022 at the end of the Board.

(Geeta Ahuja) (Anand Prakash)

Court Master Court Master