Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 1529
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, TARUN CHATTERJEE, D.K. JAIN, JJ.
Shakti Vahini - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 190 of 2002.
Decided on : 19-07-2006
For the Appellant :Anuradha Singh, Jyoti Mendiratta and Indra Sawhney, Advocates.
For the UOI :V.Mohana, Rajalakshmi, Sushma Suri and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Sunita Sharma and D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the State of Goa :A.Subhashini, Advocate.
For the State of Tripura/Bihar :Gopal Singh and Rituraj Biswas, Advocates.
For the NCT of Delhi :Ashok Bhan, S.W.A.Qadri, Anil Katiyar, Ajay Sharma and Rajeev Sharma, Advocates.
For the State of Arunachal Pradesh :Anil Shrivastava, Advocate.
For the State of Uttaranchal Rachana : Srivastava, AAG.
For the State of Punjab :Sorup Singh, Sr. AAG. R.K. Panday and Arun K.Sinha, Advocates.
For the State of Maharashtra :S.S. Shinde and V.N.Raghupathy, Advocates.
For the State of Rajasthan :Aruneshwar Gupta, AAG Naveen Kr. Singh, Advocates.
For the State of Gujarat :Hemantika Wahi and Sadhana Sandhu, Advocates.
For the Chandigarh :Kamini Jaiswal, Shomila Bakshi and Rani Mishra, Advocates.
For the State of W.B. :Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma, Advocates.
For the UT of Pondicherry :T.N. V.G. Pragasam and S. Vallinayagam, Advocates.
For the Sikkim : A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur, Mini N. Nair, Arputham, Aruna & Co.
For the State of H.P. :J.S. Attri, AAG Shivani Thakur, Advocate.
For the Manipur :Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh and Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocates.
For the State of Jharkhand : Gopal Prasad, D.N. Goburdhan and Riku Sharma, V.K.Sidharthan, for Corporate Law Group.
For the State of Chattisgarh :Suparna Srivastava, Pooja M. Rajesh Srivastava, Advocates.
For the State of U.P. :Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Fizani Hussain and Garvesh Kabra, Advocates.
For the State of Nagaland :Mr.U.Hazarika, Satya Mitra and Sumita Hazarika, Advocates.
For the State of Mizoram :K.N.Madhusoodhanan and R. Sathish, Advocates.
For the State of West Bengal :Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Ashok Mathur, Ramesh Babu M.R., T.V. Ratnam, Vibha Datta Makhija, R.S. Suri, Sandhya Goswami, Ranjan Mukherjee and Jana Kalyan Das, Advocates.
The Court emphasized the need for State responses and suggested remedial measures to address the prevalent issue of trafficking of women and children.
Headnote:
Trafficking - Response to National Human Rights Commission Report - Prevalence of trafficking of women and children in various States
Fact of the Case:
The National Human Rights Commission prepared a comprehensive report on the trafficking of women and children in various States. Most States filed their responses except Punjab & Gujarat. Trafficking was found to be prevalent in Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Goa, U.P., Karnataka, and Maharashtra, with a significant percentage of trafficked children below 10 years of age.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed all States to file their responses to the report and suggest remedial measures within six weeks. The Union of India's suggestions were also being considered. Non-response from States would be assumed as having no suggestions.
Issues: Response to National Human Rights Commission Report, Prevalence of trafficking, Remedial measures
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of State responses to effectively address the issue of trafficking of women and children. It highlighted the alarming prevalence of trafficking in specific States and the need for remedial measures.
Final Decision: All States were directed to file their responses to the report within six weeks, and the Union of India's suggestions were to be filed within four weeks. Non-response from States would be assumed as having no suggestions.
ORDER :
1. In this writ petition, all the States have been served with notices. They have filed their counter affidavits. Thereafter the Report prepared by the National Human Rights Commission was made available to this Court and it is a comprehensive report regarding the trafficking of women and children in various States. Thereafter we directed that each State may file their response to the report submitted by the National Human Rights Commission. We are told that except the States of Punjab & Gujarat, all the States have filed their responses. From the report we see that the trafficking of children and women is prevalent mainly in the States of Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Goa, U.P., Karnataka and Maharashtra. It is also an alarming feature that 9.4% of the trafficked children are below 10 years of age and the rest of the children are in the age group of 16 years to 18 years. Unless the State Governments file their responses, this Court would not be able to give any effective directions in the matter. We direct each of the State to file their response within a period of six weeks. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretaries of the respective State(s) and they shall file their response and suggest remedial measures to tackle this problem. The Union of India has prepared certain suggestions which is being considered by the concerned Ministry. Those suggestions would be filed within a period of four weeks. If there is no response from the States, it would be assumed that the State(s) has no suggestion to make.
2. List after six weeks.
