Child-friendly legal services scheme in place: MSLSA tells Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a legal framework for children to appoint their own lawyers in custody and family court disputes, after the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA) informed that a comprehensive scheme addressing the issue is already in place [Shraddha Dalvi v State of Maharashtra and Ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne took note of an affidavit submitted by the MSLSA stating that the NALSA (Child-Friendly Legal Services for Children) Scheme, 2024, came into effect in September 2024 and is operational in the State.As part of the scheme, Legal Services Units for Children (LSUCs) were established across all districts by November 2024.The affidavit also said that District Legal Services Authorities have been conducting outreach and awareness programmes on the scheme in educational institutions and communities..The PIL before the Court had been filed by Mumbai lawyer Shraddha Dalvi through advocate Ashley Cusher. It sought directions so that children are allowed to appoint independent legal counsel in cases involving custody, visitation, and matters under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The petitioner argued that children are often “silent sufferers” in family disputes and should be given the right to express their concerns through independent legal representation.During the hearing, the Court questioned the petitioner for failing to present data to support the claims made in her plea. “What makes you believe that necessary assistance is not provided? When you apply to MSLSA, services are provided. In which case? Do you have data? If it's not with data, why should we entertain? Supreme Court has said that the petitioner must do research and make his basis on quantifiable data. This is publicity interest litigation,” the Court had said..The Court also declined to consider the petitioner’s claim that the existing scheme had not been availed of even once and that many family court judges were unaware of its existence.The High Court had earlier issued notice in the matter to the Registrar of Family Courts and the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. It later allowed the inclusion of the Women and Child Welfare Development Department and the Law and Judiciary Department as parties, considering the petition involved policy decisions.