The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over the mention of caste and religion in the records of minors placed in Rajkiya Balgrih (Balika).
During hearings held on different dates, the Court questioned whether it was necessary for counsellors and the office of the District Probation Officer to record details relating to caste and religion in documents prepared for minors residing in such institutions.
Because of its earlier orders, the Court asked the Directorate of Women Welfare and State Government officials for a full explanation of this matter.
The Court told the Director and Secretary of Women Welfare in Uttar Pradesh to help the Court by appearing by video conference on November 26, 2025.
In compliance with the Court’s order, the State Government informed the Court that the information collected in departmental records is kept confidential and is used solely for rehabilitation purposes.
The Additional Government Advocate further submitted that a letter had been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, suggesting amendments to the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2016.
It is noteworthy that the matter arose during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition filed by Sunita Minor and others. While hearing the petition, the Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar had taken strong exception to the mention of caste and religion in the records of minors kept in Rajkiya Balgrih (Balika) and had sought responses from the State Government and the Commission.
The petition alleged that the minor was being kept in the illegal custody of the private respondents. During the course of hearing, in compliance with the Court’s earlier directions, the minor was produced before the Court.
The Court, in its November 19, 2025 hearing, recorded that the girl required psychological support and counselling that,
“………the corpus requires a sustained training programme for the upgradation of her skills, along with motivational sessions and counselling by a qualified psychologist, so that she may be able to take an informed and appropriate decision regarding her future.”
The Court ordered the personal appearance of the District Probation Officer and sought submission of an “Individual Care Plan” in the matter.
At the final hearing on February 3, 2026, the State told the Court that the minor was presently in the safe custody of her brother.
Considering these developments, the Court observed that the petition no longer required adjudication and disposed of the same.
It is pertinent to note that in its earlier orders, the Court had described caste glorification as “anti-national” and had defined reverence towards the Constitution, rather than lineage, as “the highest form of patriotism” and “the truest expression of national service.”
The Court had also issued broad directions to the State Government to remove caste references from FIRs, police documents, public records, motor vehicles, and public signboards.
Case: Sunita Minor and Another vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Date of Order: 03.02.2026
