Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 742
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
IN RE ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS - Petitioners
SMW (Crl.) No(s).1/2019
Decided On : 17-01-2020
Mr. Surinder S. Rathi, Member of Committee, Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv., Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv., Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv.,
By Courts Motion, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. A.N.S. Nadhkarni, ASG., Mr. Manish, Adv., Mr. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv., Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv., Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv., Ms. Shradha Agrawal, Adv.,Mr. Ilam P., Adv., Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Ms. Shruti Dixit, Adv., Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv., Ms. Poonam Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Gagan Deep kaur, Adv., Mrs. D. Bharathi, Reddy, Adv., Mr. P.I.Jose,Adv., Mr. Prashant Sharma,Adv., M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR, Mr. Prem Sunder Jha, AOR, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR, Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR, Mr. R. P. Gupta, AOR, Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR, Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR,
For Govt. of Puducherry : Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR, Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv., Mr. S. Manuraj, Adv.
For Calcutta : Mr. Kunal chatterji,Adv., Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee,Adv.
For Assam : Ms. Diksha Rai,Adv., Ms Palak Mahajan,Adv.
For HC of Rajasthan : Mr. K.parameshwar, AOR, Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Adv.
For Sikkim : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar,Adv., Mr. Anand Kr. Dubey,Adv., Mr. Narendra Kumar,Adv.
For Meghalaya : Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Upendra Mishra Adv., Mr. K.V. K., Adv.
High Court of Meghalaya : Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR, Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv., Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR, Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR, Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR, Intervenor-in-person, AOR
High Court of Sikkim : Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv., Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv., Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv., Ms. Geetanjali, Adv., M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
For the Impleadment : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain,Adv., Mr. S.K.Rajhora,Adv., Mr. Akhileshwar Jha,Adv., Mr. Annika Nissar Sayyed,Adv.
For the State of Goa : Mr. Arun R.Pedneker,Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma,Adv., Ms. Mukti Chaudhary,Adv.
State of Meghalaya : Mr. Avijit Mani Pripathi, Adv., Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv., Mr. K.V. K., Adv.
For the Tamil Nadu : Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Sr.Adv., Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna,Adv., Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Adv., Mr. Karthik Rajendrani,Adv., Ms. Uma Prasvna Bachu, Adv.
For the H.C. of MP : Mr. Arjun Garg,AOR, Ms. Rati Tandon, Adv., Mr. S. Mahesh Sahasranaman, Adv.
For the Maharashtra : Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv., Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv., Mr. Aditya Pande, Adv.
For the AIIMS : Mr. Atul Kumar,Adv., Ms. Sweety Singh,Adv., Ms. Archana Kumari,Adv., Mr. Rahul Pandey,Adv.
For the State of MP : Mr Rahul Kaushik,Adv., Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak,Adv., Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam,Adv., Mr.Rahul Khatri,Adv.
HC of Bombay : Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR, Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv., Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv.
For W.B. : Mr. Suhaan Mukerji,Adv., Mr. Vishal Prasad,Adv., Mr. Amit Verma,Adv., Ms. Kajal Dalal,Adv., for PLR Chambers.
State of Kerala : Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv., Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv.
For the Jharkhand : Mr. Gopal Prasad,Adv., Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv., Ms. Shalya Agarwal,Adv.
For the State of AP : Mr. G.N.Reddy,Adv., Mr. T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,Adv., Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR
For the UP : Ms. Garima Prasad,Adv., Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel,Adv., Mr. Srinivas Vishven,Adv.
For the Sikkim : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar,Adv., Mr. Anand Kr. Dubey,Adv., Mr. Narendra Kumar,Adv., Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR
For the Rajasthan : Dr.Manish Singhvi,Sr.Adv., Mr. Shailja Nanda Mishra,Adv., Mr. Arpit Parkash,Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha,AOR
For the Arunacal Pradesh : Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR, Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.
State of Haryana : Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR, M. Manpreet Kaur Bhalla, Adv.
High Court of Chhattisgarh : Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR, Ms. Upama Bhatacharjee, Adv.
HC for Jharkhand : Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR, Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv.
For the Telangana : Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the State of Tripura : Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv., Mr. Sataroop Das, Adv.
State of Karnataka : Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
For the Mizoram : Mr. Siddhesh kotwal, Adv., Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv., Ms. Arshiya Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
State of Uttarkhand : Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv., Mr. Vinay Arora, AOR
For the HP : Mr. Vikas Mahajan,AAG, Mr. Aakash Varma, Adv., Mr.Vinod Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Joydip Roy, Adv.
For the Chhatisgarh : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Sumeer Sodhi,Adv., Mr. Ashish Tiwari,Adv.
U.T. OF Andaman & Nicobar Admn. : Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv., Ms. G. Indira, AOR
Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv., Mr. Mrinal G. Mondal, Adv.
For the HC of Odisha : Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR, Mr. Niranjan S., Adv., Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AORm Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
For the Punjab : Mrs. Jaspreet Gogia,Adv.
For the Gujarat : Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR, Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR
For the Nagaland : Mrs. K.Enatoli Sema,Adv., Mr. Amit Kr. Singh,Adv., Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
Headnote:
AIIMS - Treatment - Report of AIIMS - Report submitted by Medical Superintendent of AIIMS which states that injured, Advocate, is still in a coma - He cannot talk and can barely communicate - Though, it is stated that he does respond with eye contact - Report of AIIMS is that no further treatment can be given to him and he may be either taken to some other hospital or kept at home because no further treatment at AIIMS is required - Fact that there is always shortage of beds at AIIMS and is not be given any active treatment in AIIMS, Court permit AIIMS to discharge him subject to condition that should be admitted in Hospital for further aftercare and treatment – Held, Court further direct that in terms of our order dated Registrar General of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Chief Secretary of State of Madhya Pradesh shall sit together and ensure that requisite exclusive POCSO Courts are set up in State - Court make it clear that issue of setting up Human Rights Courts will not be taken in this Suo Moto Writ Petition and this petition will deal only with exclusive POCSO Courts - Issue of setting up of Human Rights Courts shall be dealt with C.A. No - It is pointed out to us that there is another matter being C.A. No wherein issue of setting up Human Rights Courts is also been dealing with - List all three matters regarding setting up of Human Rights Court before one Bench after obtaining orders from Hon’ble Chief Justice of India – Order accordingly.
ORDER :
Report of AIIMS
1. We have considered the Report submitted by Medical Superintendent of the AIIMS which states that the injured Mahendra Singh, Advocate, is still in a coma. He cannot talk and can barely communicate. Though, it is stated that he does respond with eye contact. The report of AIIMS is that no further treatment can be given to him and he may be either taken to some other hospital or kept at home because no further treatment at AIIMS is required.
2. Keeping in view the fact that there is always shortage of beds at AIIMS and Sh. Mahendra Singh is not be given any active treatment in AIIMS, we permit AIIMS to discharge him subject to the condition that he should be admitted in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital at Lucknow for further aftercare and treatment.
3. We direct the State of U.P. to ensure that a suitable Ambulance can be used in such a case so that the injured can be transferred from AIIMS, Delhi to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia.
4. Needful be done within one week.
5. We make it clear that Sh. Mahendra Singh should be provided proper treatment including physiotherapy free of cost. State of Madhya Pradesh
6. On 16.12.2019, we had passed an order with regard to State of Madhya Pradesh in which we had observed that the State of Madhya Pradesh had not cared to file response either to the order of this Court dated 25.07.2019 or to the order dated 13.11.2019. After we had dictated the portion of order relating to Madhya Pradesh, Shri Rahul Kaushik had put in appearance as noted in the last portion of the order.
7. Now, affidavit has been filed along with application for waiver of the cost.
8. From the affidavit, it appears that there are 28 exclusive POCSO Courts already functioning. Since action has now been taken, we waive the cost of Rs.10 Lakhs.
9. We further direct that in terms of our order dated 16.12.2019, the Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh shall sit together and ensure that requisite exclusive POCSO Courts are set up in the State.
10. List the matter on 06.03.2020.
11. We make it clear that issue of setting up Human Rights Courts will not be taken in this Suo Moto Writ Petition and this petition will deal only with exclusive POCSO Courts. The issue of setting up of Human Rights Courts shall be dealt with C.A. No.7968/2019 and W.P.(C) No.819/2019.
12. It is pointed out to us that there is another matter being C.A. No.5912/2012 wherein the issue of setting up Human Rights Courts is also been dealing with.
13. List all the three matters regarding setting up of Human Rights Court before one Bench after obtaining orders from Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
