JUDGMENT :

Ranganath Misra, J. - These two applications under Article 32 of the Constitution are in the nature of a public interest litigation. A news reporter and a trainee sub-editor have moved this Court for appropriate directions to the Delhi Administration and the authorities of the Central Jail at Tihar, pointing out features of mal-administration within the jail relating to juvenile undertrial prisoners. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Court made several orders with reference to juvenile prisoners and undertrials. On 28th October, 1983 this Court directed :-

"When these writ petitions came up for hearing before us we had certain hesitation in entertaining them because another petition was pending in the High Court of Delhi in regard to juvenile prisoners in Tihar Jail where some directions had been given by the High Court and we were anxious to avoid a parallel investigation particularly since in matters of this kind it is desirable that the High Courts should be activised. But since no inquiry into the conditions prevailing in the Tihar Jail, in so far prisoners in the juvenile ward are concerned, had been ordered and what was ordered was only a limited inquiry relating to medical examination of 7 juvenile prisoners who were directed to be produced in Court, we thought that we would be failing in our constitutional duty if we do not take judicial action and direct the District Judge to visit Tihar Jail for making inquiry into the conditions prevailing in the Tihar Jail in so far as the prisoners in the juvenile ward are concerned. We decided to entrust this task to the District Judge because he is even otherwise visitor at the Tihar Jail and we thought it would be better to send an officer who is ultimately responsible for ensuring proper conditions in the Tihar Jail rather than, entrust this work to an outside organisation or agency. We are glad that we made this order because the Report made by the District Judge discloses a shocking state of affairs in so far as juvenile prisoners are concerned. The District Judge has interviewed some of the juvenile prisoners in regard to whom he learnt, as a result of the inquiry made by him, that they had been subjected to sexual assault by the adult prisoners. The juvenile prisoners who made statements before the District Judge have expressed apprehension that they might get into difficulties and be victimised if their names are disclosed and the District Judge has also suggested in his Report that either the names should not be disclosed or if the names of these juvenile prisoners are disclosed, adequate protection should be granted to them. We do not think it would be right not to disclose the names of these juvenile prisoners while supplying copies of the Report of the District Judge to the advocates of the parties but we do think it necessary to provide adequate protection to them. We would, therefore, direct that the following undertrial juvenile prisoners, namely............shall be released immediately in the course of the day on their executing a bond of Rs. 500/- each before the Superintendent of Tihar Jail. There are also three convicted juvenile prisoners in the Tihar Jail, namely............who have given statements to the District Judge. They should be released forthwith on parole for a period of one month on their executing a bond for Rs. 500/- each before the Superintendent of Tihar Jail that they will surrender themselves to the jail authorities on the expiration of the period of one month. The release of these three convicted juveniles prisoners on parole will also be done in the course of the day. We may make it clear that we are making this order for release of the aforementioned juvenile prisoners - undertrial as well as convicted - only with a view to protecting them and we are, at the present moment, not passing upon the correctness or otherwise of the statements made by them.

The learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents s