Sheela Barse & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1451/85.
Petitioner: Sheela Barse & Anr.
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1451/85.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT,JJ:
Date of Judgment: May 04, 1988
Head Note:
CHILDREN ACT, 1960:
Children in jails – Report of District Judges in regard to the position of Remand Homes and Short Stay Homes – States/Union Territories directed to respond to the Report of the District Judges by filing appropriate affidavits – Non response to be deemed to be contempt of the Court’s direction.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. So far as Union Territory of Chandigarh is concerned, there was a direction of this Court that counsel for the Union Territory should be served with a copy of the brief. The brief in this case has assumed large size on account of the fact that all the States and Union Territories are concerned and different orders from time to time have been made. Union Territory of Chandigarh had been served with notice along with other States and Union Territories, but it chose to appear belately some time in 1987. All the papers that have now been on record cannot be supplied. It is open to the counsel for the Union Territory to pick and choose any particular document on inspection and take copies on payment. Pursuant to the previous direction, the petitioner has already supplied a copy of the writ petition. We direct the Registry to supply a copy of the relevant District Judge’s report. The District Judge’s report shall be furnished to her by day after tomorrow.
2. This matter was adjourned yesterday to be taken up this morning. Under orders of this Court, District Judges from various states after inspection have sent reports as to whether in the different jails located in the States children are being housed along with criminals in regular jails. Pursuant to repeated directions, reports were received about two years back and were tabularised. Copies of the same have been made available to counsel.
3. When the matter was taken up this morning, in view of the fact that certain states were not appearing we wanted to verify which of the States were ready to proceed with the matter by engaging counsel. On verification the following picture emerged:-
1. Govt. of India – Ms. A. Subhashini.
2. Andhra Pradesh – Mr. K. Ramkumar.
3. Arunachal Pradesh – No appearance.
4. Assam – Mr. Probir Choudhery.
5. Bihar – No appearance.
6. Goa – No appearance.
7. Gujarat – No appearance.
8. Haryana – No appearance.
9. Himachal Pradesh – No appearance.
10. Karnataka – No Appearance.
11. Kerala – Mr. K.R. Nambiar.
12. Madhya Pradesh – Mr. S.M. Khare.
13. Jammu & Kashmir – Mr. S.K.Bhattacharya.
14. Maharashtra – Mr. S.B.Bhasme.
15. Manipur – No Appearance.
16. Meghalaya – Mr. D.N.Mukherjee.
17. Mizoram – No appearance.
18. Nagaland – No appearance.
19. Orissa – Mr. S.K.Mehta.
20. Punjab – No appearance.
21. Rajasthan – No appearance.
22. Sikkim – No appearance.
23. Tamil Nadu – Mr. T.V.Ratnam.
24. Tripura – No Appearance.
25. Uttar Pradesh – Ms. Rachna Joshi.
26. West Bengal – Mr. Tapas Ray.
27. Andman & Nikobar Isl. – No appearance.
28. Chandigarh – Ms. Kamini Jaiswal
29. Dadar & Nagar Haveli – No appearance.
30. Delhi – No appearance.
31. Lakshdweep – No appearance.
32. Pondicherry – No appearance.
4. It is brought to our notice that though under the Children’s’ Act, sentence of imprisonment could not be awarded, there have been several instances where overlooking the mandatory provisions of the Act such sentences have been passed and the accused children are now undergoing the sentences. The petitioner has agreed that within a week from now she would file in the Registry a list showing such instances statewise. Once such a list is filed the Registry shall forward the same to the respective State or Union Territory Legal Aid and Advice Boards and every Board is directed to scrutinise each case relating to its jurisdiction within two months hence and transmit its report to the Registry of this Court by the end of July, 88.
5. Reports of the District Judges in regard to the position of Remand Homes and Short Stay Homes have been received. In many cases we find that the accommodation provided is in dangerous or dilapidated condition. There are other particulars in the reports of the District Judges which also require to be looked into.
6. We are told that except in the case of State of Orissa no affidavit has been filed disclosing the latest position on the basis of steps taken subsequent to the inspection by the District Judges. Since the matter is being adjourned till other side of the vacation for final hearing, we direct each of the States/ Union Territories to respond to the reports of the District Judge in regard to facts relevant to their States by filing appropriate affidavits on or before 15th of July, 1988. If there is no response to this direction, the Home Secretary of the defaulting State or Union Territory shall be deemed to be in contempt of the Court’s direction. The Registry shall immediately forward a copy of this order to every State and Union Territory.
7. The petitioner says that she would supply a separate list of the Homes which require immediate attention from the safety angle. If such a list is given a copy of such list may also be sent along with the copy of the order to the concerned States. The matter is adjourned to 18th July, 1988 for direction.
8. Copy of this order may be supplied to counsel whose appearance has been sustained.
1. So far as Union Territory of Chandigarh is concerned, there was a direction of this Court that counsel for the Union Territory should be served with a copy of the brief. The brief in this case has assumed large size on account of the fact that all the States and Union Territories are concerned and different orders from time to time have been made. Union Territory of Chandigarh had been served with notice along with other States and Union Territories, but it chose to appear belately some time in 1987. All the papers that have now been on record cannot be supplied. It is open to the counsel for the Union Territory to pick and choose any particular document on inspection and take copies on payment. Pursuant to the previous direction, the petitioner has already supplied a copy of the writ petition. We direct the Registry to supply a copy of the relevant District Judge’s report. The District Judge’s report shall be furnished to her by day after tomorrow.
2. This matter was adjourned yesterday to be taken up this morning. Under orders of this Court, District Judges from various states after inspection have sent reports as to whether in the different jails located in the States children are being housed along with criminals in regular jails. Pursuant to repeated directions, reports were received about two years back and were tabularised. Copies of the same have been made available to counsel.
3. When the matter was taken up this morning, in view of the fact that certain states were not appearing we wanted to verify which of the States were ready to proceed with the matter by engaging counsel. On verification the following picture emerged:-
1. Govt. of India – Ms. A. Subhashini.
2. Andhra Pradesh – Mr. K. Ramkumar.
3. Arunachal Pradesh – No appearance.
4. Assam – Mr. Probir Choudhery.
5. Bihar – No appearance.
6. Goa – No appearance.
7. Gujarat – No appearance.
8. Haryana – No appearance.
9. Himachal Pradesh – No appearance.
10. Karnataka – No Appearance.
11. Kerala – Mr. K.R. Nambiar.
12. Madhya Pradesh – Mr. S.M. Khare.
13. Jammu & Kashmir – Mr. S.K.Bhattacharya.
14. Maharashtra – Mr. S.B.Bhasme.
15. Manipur – No Appearance.
16. Meghalaya – Mr. D.N.Mukherjee.
17. Mizoram – No appearance.
18. Nagaland – No appearance.
19. Orissa – Mr. S.K.Mehta.
20. Punjab – No appearance.
21. Rajasthan – No appearance.
22. Sikkim – No appearance.
23. Tamil Nadu – Mr. T.V.Ratnam.
24. Tripura – No Appearance.
25. Uttar Pradesh – Ms. Rachna Joshi.
26. West Bengal – Mr. Tapas Ray.
27. Andman & Nikobar Isl. – No appearance.
28. Chandigarh – Ms. Kamini Jaiswal
29. Dadar & Nagar Haveli – No appearance.
30. Delhi – No appearance.
31. Lakshdweep – No appearance.
32. Pondicherry – No appearance.
4. It is brought to our notice that though under the Children’s’ Act, sentence of imprisonment could not be awarded, there have been several instances where overlooking the mandatory provisions of the Act such sentences have been passed and the accused children are now undergoing the sentences. The petitioner has agreed that within a week from now she would file in the Registry a list showing such instances statewise. Once such a list is filed the Registry shall forward the same to the respective State or Union Territory Legal Aid and Advice Boards and every Board is directed to scrutinise each case relating to its jurisdiction within two months hence and transmit its report to the Registry of this Court by the end of July, 88.
5. Reports of the District Judges in regard to the position of Remand Homes and Short Stay Homes have been received. In many cases we find that the accommodation provided is in dangerous or dilapidated condition. There are other particulars in the reports of the District Judges which also require to be looked into.
6. We are told that except in the case of State of Orissa no affidavit has been filed disclosing the latest position on the basis of steps taken subsequent to the inspection by the District Judges. Since the matter is being adjourned till other side of the vacation for final hearing, we direct each of the States/ Union Territories to respond to the reports of the District Judge in regard to facts relevant to their States by filing appropriate affidavits on or before 15th of July, 1988. If there is no response to this direction, the Home Secretary of the defaulting State or Union Territory shall be deemed to be in contempt of the Court’s direction. The Registry shall immediately forward a copy of this order to every State and Union Territory.
7. The petitioner says that she would supply a separate list of the Homes which require immediate attention from the safety angle. If such a list is given a copy of such list may also be sent along with the copy of the order to the concerned States. The matter is adjourned to 18th July, 1988 for direction.
8. Copy of this order may be supplied to counsel whose appearance has been sustained.
