1995 JTR(SC) 906
1995 3 AICLR 235 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 3903 ; 1995 CriLR 589 ; 1995 3 Crimes(SC) 753 ; 1995 6 JT 615 ; 1995 3 RCR(Cri) 683 ; 1995 5 Scale 159 ; 1995 5 SCC 654 ; 1995 SCC(Cri) 1000 ; 1995 Supp3 SCR 350 ; 1995 2 KLT(Online) 1056
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.
SHEELA BARSE
Versus
UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS.
CMP No. 505 of 1994 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 237 of 19891 Decided on 5-9-1995 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Advocates appeared:
Harish N. Salve, S.N. Choudhary, N.N. Goswami and V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocates (S. Muralidhar, A. Sharan, A.K. Sinha, Ms Shalini Kumar, Ms Indu Malhotra, Ashok Srivastava, T.C. Sharma, Ms Sushma Suri, Naresh Kumar Sharma, Ranbir Yadav, R.S. Suri, P. Parameswaran, Krishan Mahajan, K.V. Venkataraman, N. Sharma, M. Mudgal, O.K. Sinha and J.R. Dass, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21, Art.32
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions, Article 21 and Article 32, form the foundational framework for this Public Interest Litigation concerning the protection of fundamental rights to life and liberty of mentally ill and insane women detained in inhuman conditions at Presidency Jail, Calcutta. Article 21 provides the substantive right to protection against arbitrary state action and ensures dignity, while Article 32 empowers this Court to issue appropriate remedies, including the appointment of Commissioners and continuous monitoring to enforce these rights. This case exemplifies the Court's exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under Article 32 to address systemic failures in state compliance with prior orders, culminating in the delegation of monitoring authority to High Courts as a mechanism to ensure effective implementation of its directives.
(B) Key legal principles include the non-derogable nature of rights under Article 21, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, the delegation of judicial monitoring functions to High Courts, and the utilization of Public Interest Litigation for institutional reform.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was registered regarding the deplorable conditions of mentally ill and insane women in Presidency Jail, Calcutta, leading to the appointment of Commissioners and multiple Court orders. After the petitioner withdrew, the matter was monitored by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The Court then decided to transfer the monitoring function to the respective High Courts.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that continuous monitoring was essential for ensuring compliance with its orders and that High Courts are better positioned to oversee state implementation. It directed the preparation of case records and mandated that High Courts act as the petitioner in respective jurisdictions.
Issues:
Whether the Supreme Court can delegate its monitoring function to High Courts. Whether High Courts have the authority to pass further orders to protect detained women. Whether the Union of India is responsible for bearing the cost of record preparation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court, to ensure effective implementation of its orders and protect fundamental rights, transferred monitoring to High Courts, requiring record preparation, cost allocation to the Union, and designation of a Judge to handle the matter as a Public Interest Litigation.
Result:
The matter is closed with directives for High Courts to monitor compliance, prepare records, and pass further orders, with the Union of India bearing the costs.
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions, Article 21 and Article 32, form the foundational framework for this Public Interest Litigation concerning the protection of fundamental rights to life and liberty of mentally ill and insane women detained in inhuman conditions at Presidency Jail, Calcutta. Article 21 provides the substantive right to protection against arbitrary state action and ensures dignity, while Article 32 empowers this Court to issue appropriate remedies, including the appointment of Commissioners and continuous monitoring to enforce these rights. This case exemplifies the Court's exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under Article 32 to address systemic failures in state compliance with prior orders, culminating in the delegation of monitoring authority to High Courts as a mechanism to ensure effective implementation of its directives.
(B) Key legal principles include the non-derogable nature of rights under Article 21, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, the delegation of judicial monitoring functions to High Courts, and the utilization of Public Interest Litigation for institutional reform.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was registered regarding the deplorable conditions of mentally ill and insane women in Presidency Jail, Calcutta, leading to the appointment of Commissioners and multiple Court orders. After the petitioner withdrew, the matter was monitored by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The Court then decided to transfer the monitoring function to the respective High Courts.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that continuous monitoring was essential for ensuring compliance with its orders and that High Courts are better positioned to oversee state implementation. It directed the preparation of case records and mandated that High Courts act as the petitioner in respective jurisdictions.
Issues:
Whether the Supreme Court can delegate its monitoring function to High Courts. Whether High Courts have the authority to pass further orders to protect detained women. Whether the Union of India is responsible for bearing the cost of record preparation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court, to ensure effective implementation of its orders and protect fundamental rights, transferred monitoring to High Courts, requiring record preparation, cost allocation to the Union, and designation of a Judge to handle the matter as a Public Interest Litigation.
Result:
The matter is closed with directives for High Courts to monitor compliance, prepare records, and pass further orders, with the Union of India bearing the costs.
A.K.SINHA, A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.SHARAN, D.K.SINHA, HARISH N.SLAVE, Indu Malhotra, J.R.DAS, K.V.VENKATARAMAN, KRISHAN MAHAJAN, M.MUDGAL, N.N.GOSWAMY, N.SHARMA, NARESH K.SHARMA, R.PARAMESVARAN, R.S.Suri, Ranbir Yadav, S.MURALIDHARAN, S.N.CHAUDHARY, SHALINI KUMAR, SUSHMA SURI, T.C.SHARMA, V.C.MAHAJAN
ORDER
1. A letter from Ms Sheela Barse addressed to the Honble Chief Justice of India with respect to the deplorable conditions in which mentally ill and insane women were locked up and kept in Presidency Jail, Calcutta, was registered as a writ petition and certain orders passed. Subsequently, Ms Sheela Barse withdrew from the matter. In her place, the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee was substituted. Several orders were passed by this Court from time to time. Commissioners were also appointed to investigate and report on the conditions obtaining in places where women and children were being detained. Over the years, this Court has also been monitoring the implementation of its orders.
2. When this matter was placed before us on 21-8-1995, it was suggested by Shri S. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner (Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) and also by some of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that it would be appropriate if the function of monitoring the implementation of the several orders passed by this Court is made over to respective High Courts. It was suggested that each High Court be requested to monitor and ensure proper and full implementation of the orders of this Court insofar as that particular State is concerned. We found the suggestion acceptable. Shri Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Harish Salve, learned counsel for the respondents have placed before us their suggestions. The following orders are made after hearing the learned counsel:
1. The office shall prepare requisite number of sets of the record of this case. The record shall be in two parts. Part 1 shall contain the letter written by Ms Sheela Barse (along with the enclosures thereto), the orders passed by this Court from time to time arranged in proper sequence and the reports of the Commissioners appointed by this Court, again in their proper sequence.
2. The office shall separate the affidavits, counter-affidavits, rejoinders and further affidavits, if any, along with their annexures with respect to each State separately. If there are any affidavits, reports or other documents filed by the Union of India, the same may be included in each of such sets. Thisshall be treated as Part II of the record. Obviously, it will be separate for each State concerned herein.
3. The cost of preparing both Parts I and II shall be borne by the Union of India. After the record is prepared as directed above, the cost thereof shall be intimated to the learned counsel for the Union of India in this case who shall communicate the same to the authority concerned. The payment shall be made into the office of this Court within three months therefrom.
4. The office shall communicate a copy of Part I to each of the High Courts. Along with Part I, Part II relating to that particular State shall also be enclosed.
5. The High Courts are requested to register the record so received by them as a Public Interest Litigation. The Honble Chief Justice of each of the High Courts is requested to designate a Judge of that Court to deal with the matter. The High Court shall make all such necessary and appropriate orders as may be warranted, from time to time, for a proper implementation of the orders of this Court. The High Court shall also be free to pass such other and further orders as may be found necessary or appropriate to protect and improve the conditions obtaining in places where women and children - not accused or convicted of any crime are detained.
6. The High Court Legal Aid Committee of each of the High Courts shall be treated as the petitioner in the matter in that High Court. Copies of Part I (and Part II, wherever applicable) shall be communicated to the respective Legal Aid Board in the High Court.
The High Court Legal Aid and Advice Board will assist the High Court in the matter of monitoring compliance with the orders and directions made by this Court. It will be entitled to apply for such further orders and directions from the High Court as may be found necessary in the matters.
7. It is made clear that the High Courts to whom the proceedings are being made over shall be fully free and competent to pass such further orders and make such further directions as they think appropriate in the light of the facts and circumstances obtaining in that particular State consistent with and to further the objectives underlying the orders of this Court.
8. So far as the State of Assam is concerned, the High Court shall ensure that the State of Assam complies with the several suggestions made in the report of the Commissioner, Shri Gopal Subramaniam, and the order made by this Court on 3-10-1994 on the basis of the said report.
3. With the above directions, the matter is closed.
For Citation: 1995(5) SCC 654
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.