CLINICAL

ADVOCATES ACT – STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND MAJOR CASE LAWS REGARDING
MISCONDUCT.

Fundamental prerequisite of any profession is good ethics. Ethics denotes to human behaviour to
make decisions between what is correct and what is wrong. Professional ethics are those set code or
moral principles that govern a person's conduct in a professional workplace or work life. In the legal
profession, a lawyer must obey to professional codes for fair dealing with the client and uphold the
self-possession. The Indian government has established a statutory body known as The Bar council
of India under the Advocate Act,1961.

Advocate Act, 1961

It was introduced to implement the recommendations of the All-India Bar Committee and taking into
account the Law Commission's recommendations relating to the legal profession. The Parliament has
established The Bar Council of India under section 4 of The Advocate Act,1961. As per section 7(1)(b)
the council has to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates. And
section 49(1)(c) allows the bar council of India to make rules as to suggest the standard of
professional conduct to be observed by advocates.

Duties of Advocates to courts are:

# to maintain a respectful attitude and dignity towards courts.

# not to impact on the decision of a court by any unlawful or inappropriate means.

# use his best effort to avoid his client from doing unfair practices.

# to appear in the court in the prescribed dress, and a presentable manner.

# to wear bands or gown in courts only or ceremonial occasions and not in public places.

# not to plead in any matter in which he is himself interested.

unishment For Professional Misconduct

As per section 35 of the Advocate Act,1961 if a person is found guilty of professional misconduct
then the case will be referred to a disciplinary committee, then they fix a date of hearing and issue a
notice to the Advocate. Then the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council, will hear both the
parties, the court may:
# Dismiss the complaint,
# warning to advocate;
# suspend the Advocate from practice for certain period of time;
# remove the name of an advocate from the state roll of advocates.

n article regarding the professional misconduct of lawyers in India, with landmark judgments on
professional miscond
SEMINARChild Welfare Committees (CWCs) and the standards of care in child care institution

CONTENTS

1. ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 4

2. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH ...............6

3. BACKGROUND CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ...................................9

The Juvenile Justice System Powers and Functions of Child Welfare

Strengths of the existing data Constraints/ limitations of the existing data

4. DATA ANALYSIS: STATUS AND FUNCTIONING OF CWCs ...................11

5. SETTING UP OF CWCS AND SUPPORT BODIES.........................................14

Number of CWCs per district and jurisdictional coverage

CWC Support Bodies

6. COMPOSITION AND PROFILE OF CWC MEMBERS........................ 31

Member strength

CWC Gender Composition

Eligibility of Members

i) Age

ii) Education and experience

iii) CWC selection process

7. CWC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SITTINGS ............

Infrastructure and Venue of sittings

 Practice of additional special sittings

 Practice of rotation sittings

 Practice of parallel sittings

Frequency and duration of CWC sittings

CWC member attendance during sittings

Management of cases during sittings

i. Display board

ii. Style of sitting iii. Management of cash flow during CWC proceedings

iii. child friendliness

8. CHILD REFERRAL SOURCES..................................................... 43

9. CASE CATEGORIES/ REASONS FOR CHILD REFERRALS...................... 46

 10. PROCESS AND NATURE OF CWC DECISIONS............................................. 49

11. INADEQUATE NUMBER OF CWCS AND SUPPORT BODIES

12. IRREGULARITIES IN CWC COMPOSITION AND MEMBER SELECTION

13. POOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPROPERLY MANAGED CWC SITTINGS

14. CONCERNS RELATED TO CWC CHILD REFERRAL SOURCES

15. ISSUES SURROUNDING CWC CASE TYPES AND CATEGORIZATION

16. PROCESS AND NATURE OF CWC DECISIONS: GAPS AND CHALLENGES

17. SEVERE GAPS IN FULFILMENT OF CORE CWC RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS

18. POOR CASE DATA RECORDS AND REPORTING PRACTICES

19. INADEQUATE PERSONNEL SUPPORT

20. MONETARY CONCERNS

21. POOR CWC ROLE CLARITY AND INADEQUATE LEGAL AWARENESS

22. STANDARD OF CARE IN CHILD CARE INSTITUTIONS

ABBREVIATIONS

 ADM: Assistant District Magistrate

 CICL: Children in Conflict with Law

 CNCP: Children in Need of Care and Protection

 CPSU: Central Project Support Unit

 CPU: Child Protection Unit

 CRC: Convention on the Rights of the Child

 CRPC: Code of Criminal Procedure

 CRY: Child Rights and You

 CWC: Child Welfare Committee

 CWO: Child Welfare Officers

 DAB: District Advisory Board

 DCPC: District Child Protection Committee

 DCPS: District Child Protection Society

 DCPU: District Child Protection Unit

 DLSA: District Legal Services Authorities

 DOE: Department of Education

 DOH: Department of Health

 DOL: Department of Labour

 DOP: Department of Police

 DSW: Department of Social Welfare

 DSWO: District Social Welfare Officer

 DWCD: Department for Women and Child Development

 FIR: First Information Report

 ICPS: Integrated Child Protection Scheme

 IGNOU: Indira Gandhi National Open University

 ITPA: Immoral Traffic Prevention Act

 JAPU: Juvenile Aid Police Unit

 JJB: Juvenile Justice Board

 JJC: Juvenile Justice Committee

 JJ (C & CP) Act, 2000: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

 JJ Fund: Juvenile Justice Fund JJS: Juvenile Justice System

  J&K: Jammu and Kashmir

 KSCPCR: Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

 MIS: Management Information System

 MSOP: Maharashtra Standard Operating Procedures

 MWCD: Ministry for Women and Child Development

 NALSA: National Legal Services Authority

 NCPCR: National Commission for Protection of Child Rights

 NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

 NIPCCD: National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development

 PIL: Public Interest Litigation

 PO: Probation Officer

 POCSO: Protection of Children against Sexual Offences

 SAA: Specialised Adoption Agency

 SATHI: Society for Assistance to Children in Difficult Situation

 SAB: State Advisory Board

 SCPC: State Child Protection Committee

 SCPCR: State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

INTRODUCTION

The current investigation is the primary ever subjective examination on the working of the CWCs in
India. It presents the current CWC field real factors and gives key experiences into the framework's
qualities, holes and difficulties. Through these experiences, the investigation intends to add to the
endeavours of strategy producers and child assurance professionals in achieving very much
educated, proof-based reformist changes inside the Juvenile Justice System for children out of luck
of care and security.

The cross country working of the Juvenile Justice System (JJS) first went under the High Court
scanner in the Sampurna Behrua v/s Union of India and others case 1 NCPCR was made a
respondent for this situation through a request dated 14/02/2011 and was coordinated to present a
report giving proposals to fitting execution of the arrangements of the Juvenile Justice Act. In
compatibility of the Supreme Court order, the NCPCR documented a nitty gritty affirmation in which
the dreary working of CWCs alongside explanations behind the equivalent were indicated, albeit no
inside and out research study was led at an opportunity to show up at the equivalent.

The current arrangement of proposals to be presented by the NCPCR to the GOI be that as it may,
will be founded on completely examined research information. The ongoing sixteenth December
2012 Delhi assault case has brought the Juvenile Justice (Care what's more, Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, as corrected in 2006 and 2010 (hereinafter alluded to as the JJ Act) under serious public
examination. In this scandalous case, one of the charged is a adolescent matured seventeen years
and a half year according to class affirmation records. The warmed political, legal, public and media
discusses encompassing this case have kept on focusing around the fitting degree of discipline that
will be dispensed to adolescents who carry out horrifying wrongdoings, with the mass talk
fundamentally inclining towards extreme discipline for the adolescent. Regarding the JJ Act, the
conversations encompassing the case are basically cantered around the JJ Act relating to Children In
Conflict with Law (CICL), while the State's obligation as recommended in the JJ Act for Children in
Need of Care and Protection (CNCP) has infrequently, if at any point, been examined. A Times of
India article (Srivastava, 2013, February 1) has uncovered that the adolescent blamed had a prickly
childhood history having left his home and family at an exceptionally youthful age and having been
taken a crack at school for just a 18 months, consequently unmistakably demonstrating that the
State had fizzled in its obligation of guaranteeing sufficient consideration just as the privilege to
instruction for this child.

It is very conceivable that had the concerned CWC recognized this child as expected and given the
essential consideration, security and restoration, he might have all around been kept from
submitting such an egregious wrongdoing. It's implied that such anticipations and mediations must
be made conceivable through an advanced JJS framework for children needing care and assurance,
one that India woefully needs yet earnestly requires.

Taking into account this critical necessity to reinforce the child insurance framework in India, the
2013-14 Union Budget delivered for the current month in March 2013 is incredibly frustrating
painting an exceptionally upsetting picture for child assurance partners. The rate share of children's
financial plan inside the Union Budget has been decreased from 4.76% in 2012-13 to 4.64% in 2013-
14. Further troubling is the way that most extreme cuts have been made in the segment of child
insurance, particularly when the Centre is pushing for the usage of the Juvenile Justice Act and the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act. The absolute use for the Integrated Child Protection
Scheme (ICPS) has been diminished from Rs. 400 crores to Rs. 300 crores this year, which is a 25%
reduction, as against the scenery of the twelfth Planning Commission having assessed the
requirement for operationalization of child insurance programs at Rs. 5300 crores over the Plan time
frame for example Rs. 1060 crores for every year. This significant reduction to the main public child

1
(Writ Request (C) No. 473 of 2005).
security conspires supported by the centre that gives an apparently extensive child assurance plan, is
impossible when child misuse and brutality against children has been on a steady ascent 2.

Child insurance has reliably stayed a low need in India. Except if the focal government takes
satisfactory note of the current helpless working of the child security framework that is reeling
because of deficient assets and absence of State uphold, there is a probability that the productive
working of the JJS, comprehensive of the CWCs - the skilful expert for guaranteeing assurance to
children, may stay tricky.

OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH

CWCs are the most basic locale level bodies for guaranteeing suitable execution of the JJ Act. The
law enables CWCs to be the last expert for the consideration, treatment, assurance, improvement
and restoration of children needing care and security and for arranging all objections identified with
these children while guaranteeing that their fundamental rights furthermore, needs are met. In the
current setting as has been definite above, it is accordingly indispensable to zero in on the manners
by which the CWCs can be fortified to play out their duties with more noteworthy productivity. To
have the option to do this, it is fundamental to right off the bat evaluate the lacunae and challenges
in the current CWC activities. In view of this reasoning, coming up next are sketched out as the key
targets of the current examination:

1. Evaluate the current working of CWCs dependent on existing State-level investigations and
other pertinent writing.

2. Identify holes and difficulties in CWC working

3. Provide proposals for improving CWC adequacy.

The examination stays into the whole scope of CWC-related protected and useful components,
counting profile of CWC individuals, the board of sittings, child reference sources, measure also,
nature of CWC choices, partner coordination, documentation rehearses, financial concerns, limit
building and so on to portray manners by which the working of these regions can be improved.

The findings and recommendations provided in this study are relevant for policy makers, CWCs, and
all child protection stakeholders working directly or indirectly with the JJS. These include primarily
the Ministry for Women and Child Development (MWCD), State Departments for Women and Child
Development (DWCDs), District/ State Legal Services Authorities (D/SLSAs), State Commissions for
Protection of Child Rights (SCPCRs), District/ State Child Protection Units (D/SCPUs), Juvenile Justice
Boards (JJBs), Department of Police (DOP), Department of Social Welfare (DSW), Department of
Labour (DOL), Department of Education (DoE), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in
the area of child rights, public spirited persons etc.

2
The Indian Express, 2013, March 4; webindia123, 2013, February 28; The Hindu, 2013, March 14
BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The Juvenile Justice System

Before 1986, each State in India had its own order on Juvenile Justice with children being dealt with
diversely by various State general sets of laws. The Union Parliament of India passed its first focal
enactment on Juvenile Justice with the JJ Act of 1986. A uniform law was in this manner set up, with
India being the main nation on the planet to have an adolescent equity law that covers the two
children needing care and security and children who come in struggle with law. With the death of
this Act, guaranteeing security for children in troublesome conditions for example children needing
care and security, came to be seen for the first time as an essential piece of social equity as
additionally the equity conveyance framework.

The JJ Act 1986 anyway victimized young men regarding age, with the extent of the Act reaching out
up to eighteen years for young ladies however just sixteen years for young