SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

Y.K.SABHARWAL, C.K.THAKKER, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
R. D. Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties :Ms. Rachna Srivastava, J.S. Attri, AAG, Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.), K. Radhakrishan, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Binu Tamta (A.C.), Girdhar G. Upadhyay, Ms. Vinita G Upadhyay, Rajender Pd. Saxena, Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Ms. Mona Rajvanshi, Ms. Happy Saxena, Anubhav Kumar (for M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co.), Ms. Rachna Gupta, Sanjay Parikh, A.N. Singh, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, S.W.A. Qadri, Ms. Sushma Suri, B. Krishna Prasad, A. Subhashini, Ashok Mathur, Anis Suhrawardy, B.B. Singh, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Guntur Prabhakar, H.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, Priya Puri, V.M. Chauhan, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Ms. Pinky Behera, Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, P. Vinay Kumar, Ms. Sneha Bhaskaran, K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, K. Ram Kumar, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Gouri Karuna Das, Ms. Anu Gupta, Rajesh Singh, Kamal Kant Tripathi, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, (N/P), Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey (for R.S. Suri), Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur (for M/s. Aruputham, Aruna & Co.), K.R. Sasiprabhu, D.S. Mehra, Ranjan Mukherjee, V.G. Pragasam, Ms. Shivani Thakur, Khawairakpam Nobin Singh, Radha Shyam Jena, K.K. Rai, Anil Shrivastav, Surabh Srivastava, Ms. Smita, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Misra, A. Rohen Singh, Rajiv Mehta, Subramonium Prasad, Gopalkrishnan, Abhay Kumar, Jay Kishore Singh, S.N. Jha, S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, Mukesh K. Giri, Krishna Sarma, V.K. Sidharthan, Riku Sarma (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), Ajay Siwach, Sandeep Sharma, Manjeet Singh, Ms. Vivekta Singh, Harikesh Singh, T.V. George, (for Ms. Kavita Wadia (N/P), Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Ms. Deepti Snigh, Rajesh Srivastava, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ms. Fizani Hussain, Garvesh Kabra, U. Hazrika, Satya Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ashok K. Srivastava, Shaiwal Srivastava, Saurabh Trivedi, Ms. Susmita Lal, Ms. Malvika Sarkar, Ms. Pinky Anand, D.N. Goburdhun, Rajesh Pathak, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI.—Concerned by the plight of the undertrial prisoners languishing in various jails in the country, various directions were issued by this Court from time to time. Presently, we are considering mainly the issue of directions for the development of children who are in jail with their mothers, who are in jail either as undertrial prisoners or convicts. Children, for none of their fault, but per force, have to stay in jail with their mothers. In some cases, it may be because of the tender age of the child, while in other cases, it may be because there is no one at home to look after them or to take care of them in absence of the mother. The jail environment are certainly not congenial for development of the children.

2. For the care, welfare and development of the children, special and specific provisions have been made both in Part III and IV of the Constitution of India, besides other provisions in these parts which are also significant. The best interest of the child has been regarded as a primary consideration in our Constitution. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(3) provides that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top