Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the appointment of independent lawyers for children involved in custody disputes and cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, after the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA) informed the court that a scheme for child legal assistance already exists and is operational.
The PIL was filed by advocate Shraddha Dalvi, who argued that children are often the most unheard and unrepresented parties in matrimonial proceedings. Dalvi sought directions to frame clear guidelines for a Child Legal Assistance Programme and to allow children to appoint their own advocates under the Legal Services Authorities Act. “When parents fight, the child suffers,” Dalvi’s advocate told the court.
However, a bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne questioned the legal basis of such a plea. “Can a minor appoint a lawyer? If so, what is the need for guardianship under the Guardian and Wards Act?” observed the bench, adding, “How do we know the child is not already being provided legal assistance?”
In its affidavit filed in response in May, MSLSA informed the court that the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) had introduced a dedicated scheme for children in September 2024. By November, Legal Services Units for Children (LSCUs) were set up in every district and their members trained. Awareness programmes were also conducted in schools, colleges, and rural areas.
However, MSLSA noted, “Till date, not a single case concerning custody, guardianship, or maintenance has been referred to the legal services units for children by family courts.” It clarified that once such a referral is made, legal services would be extended to the child.
The Women and Child Development Department, in a separate affidavit, referred to a 2015 government resolution under the POCSO Act that permits legal assistance to be provided either through a family-appointed lawyer or through the Legal Services Authority if they cannot afford one.
In view of these submissions, the court observed that the petitioner’s grievance did not survive as a scheme is already in place. “In the absence of quantifiable data or evidence of the scheme not being implemented, no further directions are necessary,” the court said, disposing of the plea.
