Image from Pixabay For representational purpose only
H Anguvi Chishi
Dimapur | September 25
Nagaland’s statutory child protection system provides a legal safety net for children facing abuse, neglect and exploitation, but gaps in rehabilitation, infrastructure, staffing, funding and community response continue to affect protection after rescue, according to a child protection worker, a Child Welfare Committee member, a social activist and an advocate handling child-related cases.
For many children, rescue is only the beginning. What happens after a child is produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), removed from a dangerous environment or restored to the family can determine whether the child recovers or continues to experience trauma.
Stigma can deepen trauma
A child protection worker interviewed for this report said stigma remains one of the most damaging challenges faced by children who survive abuse.
Children are sensitive to how adults and communities respond to them. Looks of pity, whispers, labelling and repeated questions can make a child feel responsible for what happened, resulting in self-blame, shame, low self-esteem and isolation. Fear of judgement may also discourage children from seeking help.
Returning to the village can be particularly difficult. While home is expected to be a safe space, children may face re-victimisation through gossip, ignorance or misplaced sympathy. Repeated expressions of pity or words such as “bechara” can remind them of the incident and cause them to relive the trauma, the worker said.
Some children stop attending school to avoid questions, while some families keep them inside the house because of perceived shame. Such isolation can make a child vulnerable again.
The worker stressed the need to normalise a child’s return to school and community life, rebuild confidence and avoid constantly reminding the child of the incident.
Confidentiality is equally important. Once a child’s identity, photograph or personal story spreads through a village, it cannot simply be taken back and may follow the child throughout life.
Statutory safeguards in place
At the institutional level, a CWC member said statutory procedures were being followed in cases reported to the Committee.
The CWC member cited Section 31 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which requires a child in need of care and protection to be produced before the Committee within 24 hours.
The member added that all cases reported so far had adhered to the timeframe, with no reported delays in production or action.
Where a child’s home poses immediate danger, including domestic violence, sexual abuse or extreme neglect, the CWC can remove the child and place them in alternative care. This may include Children’s Homes or Open Shelters, trusted relatives or recognised facilities under the Fit Person or Fit Facility mechanism.
After restoration, monitoring is based on the severity of the case and the child’s risk profile. Though there is no fixed statutory timeframe, the CWC delegates periodic home visits and progress reviews to the District Child Protection Unit and Probation Officers.
The member said there had been no reported dereliction of duty or non-compliance by designated agencies.
However, significant institutional deficiencies remain.
Staff, infrastructure shortages
The CWC faces a severe staff shortage, with only one Data Entry Operator, who reportedly does not remain at the posted location because of irregular salary payments.
CWC members consequently have to prepare sitting and monthly reports, orders and other administrative documents themselves. The Committee also requires a Multi-Tasking Staff member to dispatch orders and notices, assist during hearings and counselling sessions and attend to parents and visitors.
The CWC does not have an independent office and operates from a Child Care Institution building. According to the member, this creates a potential institutional conflict of interest and compromises the decorum of a statutory body vested with powers comparable to those of a Judicial Magistrate First Class.
There are also no dedicated child-friendly hearing rooms, digital record-management systems or confidential counselling spaces.
Financial arrangements are another concern. CWC members reportedly do not receive their full sitting allowances, with deductions allegedly made on the grounds that the Committee does not handle enough cases or complete full sittings.
The member proposed direct transfer of allowances through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) or the Public Financial Management System (PFMS) to prevent unauthorised deductions and leakage.
The member also called for CWC appointments to be extended to at least five years. At present, members serve as independent panel members and receive per-sitting honorariums rather than functioning as full-time officials supported by permanent administrative staff.
Customary practices pose challenge
The interaction between customary village institutions and statutory child protection laws presents another challenge.
According to the CWC member, cases involving child abuse, domestic violence, child labour and early marriage are at times settled at the village level through compromise or customary fines, potentially bypassing mandatory reporting and statutory procedures under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Such settlements may be driven by concerns over family honour or village harmony.
This creates a critical fault line between customary institutions, which remain important to Nagaland’s social structure, and statutory protections guaranteeing children’s rights and safety. The member stressed that community-level settlements cannot override statutory safeguards where a child’s protection is at stake.
The system also faces shortages of registered Child Care Institutions, Fit Facilities, specialised care homes and shelters, limiting safe alternatives when children cannot return home.
Funding, vacancies raise concern
A social activist working on child-related issues questioned the transparency and availability of funds allocated for children in Nagaland.
“The allocated amount of the Nagaland State for the children has never been disclosed,” the activist said, calling for greater transparency and accountability regarding funds received through ministries, programmes and schemes and their utilisation for children.
Based on their experience, the activist said agencies and government programmes working with children often lacked adequate funds.
The activist also raised concerns over vacancies, saying information on whether posts were fully staffed was not adequately available to the public.
The functioning of child protection institutions in newer districts was also questioned. The activist pointed to Meluri district, where appointments to the CWC and Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) remained an issue, and questioned how the institutions could function effectively if personnel were not stationed at their designated locations.
Irregular salary payments were cited as one possible reason for staff not remaining at their stations. The activist questioned whether child safety could be delayed because officials responsible for protection were not accountable or available.
The activist claimed that, to their knowledge, no official or staff member had so far been terminated for alleged irresponsibility in child-protection duties, despite lapses across departments.
Calling for wider accountability, the activist said reform required individual responsibility, honesty, truthfulness and kindness to extend beyond religious or social settings into professional duties.
“Everyone is responsible for bringing the reform,” the activist said, stressing that children are victims of adult behaviour.
Justice system faces practical barriers
An advocate handling child-related cases said the primary gap between legal theory and practice was the implementation of time-bound trials.
The legal framework envisages an expedited, child-friendly process to minimise secondary trauma for victims and witnesses. However, statutory timelines alone cannot ensure speedy disposal without adequate institutional capacity and infrastructure, the advocate said.
A major difficulty is the burden on witnesses and their families. Those from remote or underprivileged areas often travel considerable distances to attend court, incurring transportation and meal expenses as well as loss of daily wages.
Although witnesses are entitled to allowances, commonly referred to as ‘batta’, the advocate said payments were either unavailable or substantially delayed.
Families may consequently have to bear the costs from limited resources, making witnesses reluctant or unable to attend proceedings and contributing to delays.
There is also a shortage of child-friendly infrastructure.
In POCSO proceedings, child victims and witnesses are examined in the judge’s chamber to provide privacy. However, the advocate said the state currently has only one dedicated Fast Track Special Court (FTSC), and even that court does not have a dedicated waiting room for children.
A child may therefore have to wait in the general court environment before examination.
These, the advocate stressed, should not necessarily be viewed as failures of the law but as ground-level limitations in delivering statutory protections. Speedy trials require coordination among police, prosecution, courts, witnesses and other stakeholders, along with adequate logistical and infrastructural support from the state.
Beyond rescue
The concerns raised by those working within and around the child protection system point to a wider question: whether the framework can be measured only by the number of children rescued, produced before CWCs or restored to their families.
The real test lies in what happens afterwards.
A child needs a safe environment, trained support, confidentiality, continued monitoring and a community that does not turn trauma into a lifelong identity.
For policymakers, the challenge is to bridge the distance between policy on paper and protection in practice by strengthening statutory institutions, providing adequate staff and infrastructure, expanding alternative care facilities, improving transparency and accountability in funding and staffing, addressing the relationship between customary and statutory systems, and creating greater community awareness about stigma.
Ultimately, child protection is not merely about taking a child out of danger. It is about ensuring that the child can return to ordinary life without being made to carry the burden of what happened to them.
Names have been left anonymous either at the individuals’ request or to protect identities.
Disclaimer: This report is part of the ‘Media Fellowship Initiative on Child Protection Awareness and Ethical Public Discourse’ series, supported by DKA Austria and implemented by Prodigals’ Home. The content is intended for public legal literacy and preventive awareness.
