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

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ranichand Baiga – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPPIL 27/2017



Advocates:
['RAJNI SOREN', '', 'KISHORE NARAYAN', 'SAMISHTI SALOMAN', 'YOUGESHWAR SHARMA', 'Kanta Nadi', 'A G', '', 'ASSTT S G']

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPPIL No. 27 of 2017

1.

Ranichand Baiga W/o Sudhar Singh Baiga Aged About 30 Years R/o Village

Chaparva Block Lormi P. S. Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

2.

Krishna Bai Baiga W/o Vinod Baiga Aged About 30 Years R/o Village

Chaparva Block Lormi P. S. Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

3.

Sita Bai Baiga W/o Pardesi Baiga Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chaparva

Block Lormi P. S. Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

4.

Krishna Kumar Baiga S/o Pilaram Baiga Aged About 30 Years R/o Village

Sarasdol Gram Panchayat Achankmar P. S. Lormi Block Lormi District Mungeli

Chhattisgarh

5.

Ramkunwar Baiga W/o Asaram Baiga Aged About 30 Years R/o Village

Mangalpur Gram Panchayat Karka Tehsil Kota P. S. Kota District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh

6.

Anita Baiga W/o Milaoram Baiga Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Mangalpur

Gram Panchayat Karka Tehsil Kota P. S. Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

7.

Amrika Bai Baiga W/o Chaitram Baiga Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nevsa

Tehsil Kota P. S. Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

8.

Samaruram Baiga S/o Late Net Ram Baiga Aged About 60 Years R/o Village

Nevsa Tehsil Kota P. S. Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

9.

Rekha Bai W/o Budhram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Aurapani Gram

Panchayat Mazgaon P. O. Semaria P. S. Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

10.

Shivkumari W/o Milap Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Umaria Gram

Panchayat Umaria P. O. Belgahana P. S. Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

11.

Harendra Singh Sijwali S/o Bahadur Singh Sijwali Aged About 32 Years R/o

Jan Swasthya Sahyog I-4 Parijat Colony Nehru Nagar, P. S. Civil Lines

Bilaspur 495001 Chhattisgarh

12.

Jan Swasthya Abhiyan Chhattisgarh Through Its Joint National Convener

Sulakshana Nandi W/o Samir Garg Age 42 C-503, Avenue 144 Amlidih P. S.

Rajendra Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary Mantralaya Naya Raipur

Chhattisgarh

2.

Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Government Of

Chhattisgarh Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

3.

Commissioner, Department Of Tribal Welfare Government Of Chhattisgarh

Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4.

Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Government Of India Nirman

Bhawan, New Delhi

wppil 27 of 2017

2

5.

Sub Divisional Officer Lormi S D M Office Block Lormi District Mungeli

Chhattisgarh

6.

Sub Divisional Officer, Kota S D M Office Block Kota District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioners

:

Ms Rajni Soren, Advocate

For Respondents/State

:

Shri AS Kachhawaha, Additional

Advocate General

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi

, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

Per

Ajay Kumar Tripathi

, Chief Justice

12.12.2018

1.

The present Public Interest Litigation has been brought about by the

petitioners who are supposed to belong to primitive tribal groups and are

officially labelled as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG). They

have a grievance that based on an archaic Office Order dated 13.12.1979

issued by the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh, specially the department

of Public Health and Family Welfare, the tribes or sub-tribes whose names

have been indicated and who inhabit the geographical areas indicated

therein are barred from availing the facility of undergoing family planning

procedure by Tubectomy or vasectomy etc.

2.

According to the petitioners, such an embargo by an administrative

order in the name of protection of the group violates their constitutional right

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

wppil 27 of 2017

3

3.

While the matter was under cons

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top