Bombay High Court Initiates Suo Moto PIL Into Abuse Allegations at Girls’ Observation Home After Nine Flee

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, July 9, 2025
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has initiated a suo moto criminal public interest litigation following reports of harassment and unsafe conditions at a girls’ observation home in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, where nine minors escaped custody on June 30.

A division bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh took cognizance of multiple news reports published between July 1 and 4 that detailed serious allegations from girls housed at the facility in the city’s Cantonment area. Majority of the girls flee, were found to be victims in protection of children from sexual offence (POCSO) Act.

The court noted that the girls allegedly broke property and armed themselves with iron rods and sticks before fleeing the premises. They reached Bhagwan Mahavir Chowk—locally known as Baba Chowk and subsequently appeared before the District Court, where they created a commotion and sought help from the District Legal Services Authority. The girls were later taken into custody by the Damini Squad and produced before the Child Welfare Committee.

The HC noted the factthat according to various reports, the girls accused the observation home’s authorities of harassment. Some objected to the presence of CCTV cameras in their rooms and raised concerns about mandatory pregnancy tests being administered in response to complaints of minor stomach pain. Others alleged staff used pressure tactics and restricted visitation privileges.

“What has disturbed us is the shocking treatment described in their statements and the reported inaction by the Child Welfare Committee,” the court observed. It added, “The police ought to have registered an F.I.R. when minor citizens are subjected to harassment or cruelty.”

The justices expressed concern that, despite the city’s commissioner of police having directed three female officers to record the girls’ statements on July 3 and 4, no first information report had been filed. They warned that such a delay risked the destruction of evidence.

The court also flagged a serious lapse in administration, noting that the facility’s operating license had expired on May 5 and had not been renewed. Despite this, approximately 80 girls reportedly remained housed there without legal authorization.

In a broader critique, the court questioned the oversight mechanisms for such institutions. “Periodic inspection reports ought to include communication with the girls’ parents,” the bench noted, adding that the scope of the inquiry would not be restricted to this single facility and could be extended to other children’s homes if the data warranted.

Senior counsel P.R. Katneshwarkar was appointed as amicus curiae and directed to file a consolidated petition by July 14. The bench instructed the police and the Child Welfare Department to fully cooperate and provide all relevant documentation.

“The authorities are moving at a snail’s pace, perhaps intending to subside the issue,” the court said, calling the matter a “burning issue” requiring immediate and thorough investigation. “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 bench said. “The police authorities ought to have lodged the F.I.R. when the minor citizens are subjected to some harassment or cruelty.”

The bench also clarified, “We are also making it very clear that we may not restrict the issue involved in this petition to a particular children’s home only. If the data is made available, then it may be extended to other children’s homes.”

The next hearing is scheduled for July 14.