Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 1226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.
Budhadev Karmaskar (2) - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010
Decided on : 19-07-2011.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 21 – Condo nation of delay – Evidence - Learned counsel appearing for State of Goa, learned counsel appearing for State of Mizoram learned counsel appearing for State of Kerala learned counsel appearing for State of Jammu & Kashmir and learned counsel appearing for Union Territory of Chandigarh, have stated that they will file affidavits on behalf of their respective States and Union Territory within a week they may do so – Held, Court may reiterate that this exercise has been done by us because word life in Article 21 of Constitution of India has been interpreted in several decisions of this Court to mean a right to life with dignity - It is only if a sex worker is able to earn a livelihood through technical skills rather than by selling her body that she can live with dignity, and that is why we have requested all States and the Union of India to submit schemes for giving technical training to these sex workers learned counsel appearing for Multipurpose Cooperative Society and Durbar Committee has made a good suggestion that in order to get rehabilitation done and implemented properly, it is necessary to carry out a survey for ascertaining how many sex workers want rehabilitation and to find out a mechanism for rehabilitation – States Union Territories and Union of India will carry out this survey through their agencies and report to Panel constituted by this order. Copy of this order will be given to counsel in this case as well as to Panel members forthwith - Conditions conducive for sex workers who wish to continue working as sex workers with dignity – Order accordingly
ORDER :
1. Mr P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, has stated that the affidavit of the Central Government will be filed within a week. He may do so.
2. Mr S. Wasim A. Qadri, learned counsel appearing for the Government of Delhi, has stated that he will be filing the affidavit on behalf of the Delhi Government in the course of the day. He may do so.
3. Mr Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, has stated that he will file the affidavit on behalf of the State of Bihar in the course of the day. He may do so.
4. Mr Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, seeks two days' time to file the affidavit on behalf of the State of Punjab. He may do so.
5. Ms A. Subhashini, learned counsel appearing for the State of Goa, Mr K.N. Madhusoodhanan, learned counsel appearing for the State of Mizoram, Mr Jogy Scaria, learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala; Mr Sunil Fernandes, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and Mr M.S. Doabia, learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Chandigarh, have stated that they will file the affidavits on behalf of their respective States and Union Territory within a week. They may do so.
6. Ms Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat, Mr C.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh and Mr Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, have stated that they will file the affidavits on behalf of their respective States within two weeks' time. They may do so.
7. It appears that the State of Uttarakhand has not filed its affidavit. None appeared on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand. The Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand is directed to file the affidavit within two weeks' time.
8. All the above affidavits, when filed, are directed to be taken on record. Copies of all the affidavits be given to Mr Pradip Ghosh and Mr Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, who have earlier been appointed as amicus curiae in this matter.
9. We further add that the affidavits which will be filed on behalf of several States and on behalf of the Union of India should focus on the implementation of the suggestions as we are acutely conscious that affidavits merely indicating and suggesting that the States and the Union of India are doing enough would not be sufficient for the cause for which this matter has been taken up. We, therefore, suggest that the States, Union Territories and the Union of India should highlight suggestions for implementation of the programmes and the schemes which might have been formulated, and come out with concrete suggestions in this regard.
10. We hereby constitute a Panel for assisting us in this matter consisting of the following:
(i) Mr Pradip Ghosh, Senior Counsel who will be the Chairman of the Panel.
(ii) Mr Jayant Bhushan, Senior Counsel.
(iii) Usha Multipurpose Cooperative Society through its President/Secretary.
(iv) Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee through its President/Secretary.
(v) Roshni through Ms Saima Hasan, 152 Golf Links, New Delhi.
11. The Chairman of the Panel, Mr Pradip Ghosh, is authorised to nominate any other organisation or individual in this Panel. The purpose of this Panel is to assist and advise us for giving suitable directions in this matter. All States, Union Territories and Union of India shall cooperate with this Panel so that the Panel can perform its functions effectively. The States and the Central Governments will attend the meetings to be fixed by the Chairman of the Panel from time to time. The Central Government will allot suitable accommodation in Delhi and staff and necessary infrastructure for the meetings of the Panel. The State Governments and the Central Government will allocate sufficient funds for the schemes suggested by us. Since this is a continuing mandamus, to begin with we will focus on the metropolitan cities of India, namely, Delhi, Kolkata,
