SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., V. KHALID, G.L. OZA, JJ.
Writ Petn. No. (Crl.) 1900 of 1981, D/-23-7-1986.
Dr. Upendra Baxi, others, Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P., others, Respondents.
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women & Girls Act – Girls Rights - Writ petition has come up for hearing in view of certain developments which have taken place since making of our last Order was on basis of a letter addresed by petitioners that this writ petition came to be entertained by Court – Petitioners pointed out in letter which was treated as a writ petition that conditions in which girls were living in Government Protective Home at Agra were abominable and they were being denied their right to live with basic human dignity by State of Uttar Pradesh which was running Protective Home – Court thereupon made various orders from time to time with a view to improving living conditions of girls in Protective Home and ensuring a decent and healthy standard of living for them – Court also asked District Judge to make periodic inspections of Protective Home with a view to monitoring full and effective implementation of various orders made by Court from time to time – Held, Writ petition a detailed rehabilitation programme which they have either set up or they propose to set up within a specified time limit would also like Superintendent of Protective Home to consider whether it would be possible to arrange for their wedding to proper persons in case they want to get married Superintendent of Protective Home can follow example of Nari Niketan in Delhi where a Committee was set up by this Court for purpose of investigating into antecedents of would be bridegrooms in order to ensure that they were genuine persons wishing to marry inmates and not bogus or sham bridegrooms who were going through ceremony of marriage merely for purpose of selling inmates or pushing them into prostitution District Judge will constitute an appropriate Committee for this purpose consisting and at least two social activists – Order accordingly.
Judgement
BHAGWATI, C.J.I. :- This writ petition has come up for hearing in view of certain developments which have taken place since the making of our last Order. It was on the basis of a letter addresed by the petitioners that this writ petition came to be entertained by the Court. The petitioners pointed out in the letter which was treated as a writ petition that the conditions in which girls were living in the Government Protective Home at Agra were abominable and they were being denied their right to live with basic human dignity by the State of Uttar Pradesh which was running the Protective Home. The Court thereupon made various orders from time to time with a view to improving the living conditions of the girls in the Protective Home and ensuring a decent and healthy standard of living for them. The Court also asked the District Judge to make periodic inspections of the Protective Home with a view to monitoring full and effective implementation of the various orders made by the Court from time to time. The District Judge himself or an Additional district Judge nominated by him, inspected the Protective Home from time to time and submitted Inspection Reports which came up for consideration before the Court on various occasions. it appears that the efforts made by the petitioners aided by Dr. R. S. Sodhi, Honorary General Secretary, Association for Social Health in India, were nearing successful conclusion when everything which had been done by the Court in order to improve the living conditions of the inmates of the Protective Home was set at naught by the State Government by shifting the Protective Home from its location in Vijaynagar colony to Adarsh Nagar Rajwara .
2. The accommodation in the premises in Vijaynagar colony had been made fairly satisfactory by the State Government pursuant to the orders made by the Court from time to time and the living conditions had considerably improved. But sometime in March, 1984 Dr. R. S. Sodhi who lived in Agra (he died some time back) came to know that the State Government was contemplating shifting of the Protective Home from the Vijaynagar colony to another locality. Immediately, on coming to know of this contemplated move on behalf of the State Government, Dr. R. S. Sodhi in a letter dated 14th March 1984 addressed to the District Judge, Agra pointed out that since the matter was pending in the Court, the Protective Home should not be shifted without the permission of the Court and the District Judge in his Inspection Report dated 15th March 1984 drew attention to this fact. The District Judge also in his Inspection Report dated 11th May, 1984 once again pointed out that he had already made it clear that "in case the Government wants to shift the Government Protective Home to any other building, the contention of Dr. Sodhi that permission of the Honble Supreme Court is mandatory, may be considered seriously before taking any steps in this regard. The District Judge reiterated in his Inspection Report dated 5th January 1985 that "since the writ petition concerning the welfare of the inmates and smooth running of the Protective Home is pending before the Honble Supreme Court and the shifting of the Home to new building is concerned with this subject, hence it will be advisable for the Administration and the Government to seek prior approval of the Honble Supreme Court before shifting the Home to the new building". It seems, however, that no steps were taken by the State Government or the Administration to obtain the permission of this Court for shifting the Protective Home to another building and without obtaining such permission the State Government, some time in the middle of 1985, surrendered possession of the premises in Vijaynagar colony to the landlord and shifted the Protective Home to new premises in Adarsh Nagar, Rajwara. It may be pointed out that the landlord had filed a suit against the State Government for eviction from the premises in Vijaynagar colony but the suit
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.