Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Poulomi Pavini Shukla vs Union Of India on 6 August, 2025
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.4 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
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S).503/2018
POULOMI PAVINI SHUKLA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA NO. 142314/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA NO. 22089/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA NO. 66125/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA NO. 75988/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA NO. 143419/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA NO. 64218/2021 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF)
Date : 06-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G.
Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Adv.
Mr. Vvv Pattabhiram, Adv.
Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR
Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR
Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Gouttam Polanki, Adv.
Mr. Murshlin Ansari, Adv.
Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv.
Ms. Disha Singh, AOR
Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.08.08
14:23:09 IST
Reason: Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv.
1
Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR
Ms. Aarushi Singh, Adv.
Mr. P K Bajaj, Adv.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, A.A.G.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ramendra Nath Makhal, Adv.
Mr. T. V. Surendranath, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Vikram Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
Mrs. Divya Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Manoneet Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Kumarmangalam, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Rai, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Chadha, A.A.G.
Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Santhosh K, Adv.
Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv.
Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR
Mr. Sarthak Raizada- G.a., Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Chhavi Khandelwal, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anupama Ngangom,,, Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.
2
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR
Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR
Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv.
Ms. G. Indira, AOR
Mr. P Gandepan, Adv.
Ms. Amrita Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv.
Ms. Raniba Pangnila, Adv.
Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR
Ms. M. Harshini, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv.
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR
Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv.
Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR
Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
Mr. Abhinav Rana, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
Mr. Krishnakant Dubey, Adv.
3
Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Ms. Jyoti P, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
Mr. T.K.Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
Mr. Shalini Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard Ms.Poulomi Pavini Shukla-petitioner,
who has appeared in-person, and learned counsel for the
respondent(s) including the respondent(s)-States.
2. The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, has
filed this Writ Petition invoking Article 32 of the
Constitution of India as a Public Interest Litigation in
order to bring to the notice of this Court the vulnerable
sections of the children namely the ‘orphans’, who have no
parents and who are in need of care and protection.
3. The petitioner submitted that although there may be
several schemes and programmes envisaged by the Central and
the State Governments for the protection and care of the
orphans, nevertheless the same are inadequate. Thus the
emphasis and focus on this petition is to ensure that
ultimately the orphan children are not left in the lurch in
this Country.
4
4. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in
this Writ Petition:
“(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon’ble
Court directing:
1. Government of India to provide ‘orphans’ who
have no family support or linkages in society of any
kind with the right to reservation in Government
jobs and educational institutions.
2. Government of India to provide for orphans and
children in Need for Care and Protection all such
benefits besides reservation in educational
institutions and in jobs, like scholarships, tuition
support, coaching for competitive examinations,
fellowships, hostels/stay facilities for post
matriculate/intermediate studies, bank loans, cash
incentives for setting up businesses and other
benefits being currently given by the Ministry of
Social Justice to children of SC/ST and OBC parents.
3. Government of India to have a policy for
assigning religion to orphans and ensure that orphan
children are given the right to choose their
religion upon attaining majority and are not under
duress of any kind to choose a specific religion.
4. Government of India to have a policy for
assigning caste to orphans and ensure that orphan
children are given the right to choose their caste
after their choice of religion and also an
appropriate name in consonance with the religion and
caste which they have chosen.
5. Government of India conduct a comprehensive
census or sample survey of Children in Need of Care
and Protection which is essential to fix the numbers
and targets and outlays in Government schemes as
well as outline the extent of the problem.
5
6. Government of India to constitute an expert
group of NITI Aayog or a Committee or Commission
like the Mandal Commission for OBCs with public
participation to examine all aspects of the ‘Orphan
and Children in Need of Care and Protection’ problem
and suggest solutions.
7. Government of India and the NITI Aayog to act
on the thinking expressed in the Government of India
National Health Policy – that the finances of the
State are inelastic – so Child Protection for which
the Centre has placed primary financial
responsibility on the States and because of which
there has been a serious paucity of resources and
support mechanisms, has to be taken up for Central
funding on a primary responsibility basis.
Government should transfer ‘Child Protection’ back
as a Central item with primary responsibility of the
Centre for funding schemes for ‘Orphans’ and Child
Protection.
8. Government of India to ensure a uniformity
in schemes and in implementation of schemes for
Child Protection across the country because all
‘Children in Need of Care and Protection’ in India-
wherever they are found-have equal rights on the
State as ‘parens patriae’ and there cannot be a
difference on locational basis in the facilities and
opportunities being given by the Republic of India
to this category of its citizens. The responsibility
of implementation of schemes for Child Protection
can remain with the States but uniform welfare
measures have to be enunciated and ensured by the
Centre.
9. Government of India to consider the repeal
of The Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes
(Supervision and Control( Act, 1960 because of the
6
dichotomy of instructions between this Act and the
JJ Act 2015 regrading registration of orphanages,
creating undue confusion.
10. Government of India to consider amending and
bifurcating the JJ Act 2015 so that legislation for
Children in need of Care and Protection should not
be an add-on to the legislation for Juvenile Justice
because the parameters are significantly different.
Indian society has to own up its responsibility to
Children in Need of Care and Protection as a
separate stand-alone enactment.
11. Government of India to substantially enhance
the budgetary allocation for Integrated Child
Protection Scheme (ICPS), National Institute of
Public Cooperation and Child Development (NIPCCD),
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
(NCPCR) and Child line with objectives and targets
clearly specified to ensure a comprehensive coverage
of all ‘Children in Need of Care and Protection’
within a specified timeline.
12. Government of India to instruct National
Institute of Public Cooperation and Child
Development (NIPCCD) to immediately create a cell
for Children in Need of Care and Protection and
initiate studies in (among others);
a. Suicide rates among orphans leaving
Children Homes.
b. Percentage of children ending up in
jail within 5 years of leaving Children
Homes.
c. Higher education possibilities and
programs for orphans leaving Children
Homes.
d. Numbers of children in Children Homes
completing various levels of primary and
7
secondary education.
e. Numbers completing Graduation and
numbers completing any professional degree
(B.Tech., M.B.B.S etc).
f. Nature of jobs/professions being
taken up by orphans.
13. Government of India to ensure that there should
be at least one orphanage or Children Home for each,
boys and girls, in every district directly under the
District Collector and to put in place systems for
participation of Public Representatives in the local
administrative decisions of Government Orphanages
and also for accepting donations from civil society.
Ideally, there should be at least 5 orphanages or
Children Homes in each district;
a. For children of the age 0 to 10 years
b. For boys of the age 11 to 17 years
c. For girls of the age 11 to 17 years
d. For boys of the age 18 to 22 years
e. for girls of the age 18 to 22 years
14. Government of India to ensure that the
provisions of education in good, private schools
included in the Right to Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) currently
being made available for children of below-poverty-
line parents, are extended to orphans of registered
institutions.
15. Government of India to modfy the 18 year age
cut-off in State support to ‘orphans’ and, as the
Government of India provides support and schemes
extensively for children of OBC and SC/ST parents
beyond 18 years of age, namely tuition, fellowships,
coaching, bank loans, micro finance and seed
capital, Government of India should strengthen
provisions in a similar manner for support to
8
children aging out of Children Homes to provide them
similar support for higher education and earning
opportunities, till they attain an age of self-
sufficiency (of say, 22 years).
16. Government of India to address the issue of
stigmatization and discrimination of ‘orphan’ and
children in the streets through public
sensitization.
17. Government of India to associate Public
Representatives and Civil Society and with existing
Orphanages and Children Care Houses in a structured
manner.
18. Government of India to earmark 1% to the
total funds under MPLADS and MLALADS Discretionary
Allotments for Members of Parliament and Members of
State Legislatures for ‘orphans’ and ‘Children in
need of Care and Protection’. This will make Public
Representatives interact with this class of citizens
in routine and this attention should emerge as a
paradigm changing focus.
19. Government of India be directed to announce an
orphan Day (suggestion January 1 – New Year’s Day)
and press the United National for it to be
recognized as the International Orphan Day to focus
the attention of civil society, business houses in
CSR, educational institutions etcetera on
‘orphans’.”
5. In this regard, while drawing our attention to the
prayers sought for by her, she pointed out that under
Section 2(1)(d) of the Right Of Children to Free And
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for brevity, “the Act”),
the definition of ‘Child’ ought to also include an orphan
child as such a child may be socially, culturally,
9
economically and gender-wise, a disadvantaged child. She
submitted that the expression, “Or such other factor” can
also include that section of the Children who are orphans
and who may not be having any guardian or other person to
take care of them. Such orphans may also be in orphanages
or even without any other protective institution to take
care of them. It was her contention that the first and
foremost need of such orphan children is to have free and
compulsory education in terms of the Act. In this regard,
she drew our attention to Section 3 and also to section
12(1)(C) of the Act.
6. Section 3 envisages free and compulsory education for
Children from the age of 6 to 14 years. This is in line
with Article 21A of the Constitution of India which has
recognized the Right to Education as a Fundamental Right
and also Article 51A(k) of the Constitution of India,
wherein it has been recognized as a Fundamental Duty of the
parents, but in the absence of orphans having parents it
becomes the duty of the State to act as ‘parens patriae’ to
ensure that such children are not denied the Right to Free
Education under the provisions of this Act.
7. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner was that
under Section 3 read with Section 12 (1)(c) of the Act, the
right of the orphans to be admitted to a neighbourhood
school within the 25% quota may be recognized. For
immediate reference, we extract section 12 as under:
“12. Extent of school’s responsibility for free and
10
compulsory education. –
1)For the purposes of this Act, a school,-
(a)specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of
section 2 shall provide free and compulsory elementary
education to all children admitted therein;
(b)specified in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of
section 2 shall provide free and compulsory elementary
education to such proportion of children admitted therein
as its annual recurring aid or grants so received bears
to its annual recurring expenses, subject to a minimum of
twenty-five per cent.;
(c)specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause
(n) of section 2 shall admit in class I, to the extent of
at least twenty-five per cent. of the strength of that
class, children belonging to weaker section and
disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free
and compulsory elementary education till its
completion:Provided further that where a school specified
in clause (n) of section 2 imparts pre-school education,
the provisions of clauses (a) to (c) shall apply for
admission to such pre-school education.
(2)The school specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n)
of section 2 providing free and compulsory elementary
education as specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1)
shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the
extent of per-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or
the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is
less, in such manner as may be prescribed:Provided that
such reimbursement shall not exceed per-child-expenditure
incurred by a school specified in sub-clause (i) of
clause (n) of section 2:Provided further that where such
school is already under obligation to provide free
education to a specified number of children on account of
it having received any land, building, equipment or other
facilities, either free of cost or at a concessional
rate, such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement
to the extent of such obligation.
(3)Every school shall provide such information as may be
required by the appropriate Government or the local
authority, as the case may be.”
8. We find that the submission of the petitioner, who
has appeared in-person, requires consideration and we
therefore direct the respondent(s)-States/Union Territories
to make a survey of the orphan children who have already
been granted admission under the above-mentioned provisions
11
of the Act as well as a survey of the children who have
been deprived of such Right to Free And Compulsory
Education under the Act and if so, for what reasons and
submit an affidavit in that regard.
9. It is needless to observe that while the survey and
data collection is being done in the above context, a
simultaneous effort shall also be made for ensuring that
such deserving children (orphans) are admitted in the
neighbourhood schools in case they have not yet been done
so owing to the singular fact that such children are
orphans and may not have had the opportunity of being
admitted in the neighbourhood schools under the provisions
of the Act.
10. For ascertaining the aforesaid data and also
compliance, we grant four weeks’ time.
11. We also take note of the fact that the Governments of
the States of Delhi, Gujarat, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,
Sikkim, Jarkhand, Manipur and Orissa have already issued
notifications to include orphan children within the 25%
quota to be admitted to neighbourhood schools under the
provisions of the Act.
12. The other States to also consider issuing such a
notification and take steps to ensure that the aforesaid
directions are complied with and file an affidavit in that
regard. The said exercise shall be completed within a
period of four weeks from today.
13. In case a notification is issued by any State(s) or
12
Union Territories, then the same may be placed on record.
14. We expect that such a notification would be issued by
the other States also, failing which an affidavit as to why
such a notification has not been issued shall be filed by
the Secretary, Department of Education.
15. List on 09.09.2025.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
13