Tag: #caseanalysis

Vishal Jeet vs UOI and Other States and Union Territories

Posted on

The present case summary has been written by Vanshika Arora.

Petition Number 

421 of 1989

Equivalent Citation 

(1990) 3 SCC 318

Bench

Hon’ble Justice S. Ratnaval Pandian 

Date of Judgment 

May 5, 1990

Relevant Act 

Constitution of India 

Relevant Articles 

Article 23(1), 35(a)(ii), 39(e) and (f), 32 

Summary of the Petition 

The petitioner, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, against forced prostitution of girls, devadasis, and joints and also requested their rehabilitation. In light of the squalid ‘flesh trade’ prevalent in India, the petitioner highlighted that younger girls, when reaching puberty are forced into prostitution either by their parents or by means of kidnapping. Parents who cannot take responsibility for their girls anymore, due to abject penury, force them into these professions. While brothel keepers who are motivated by profit run intricate racquets of kidnapping. In light of this briefly elaborated situation, the petitioner filed a PIL along with affidavits of 9 girls that have forcefully been part of this unethical practice and seek rehabilitation. The filed PIL seeks issuance of guidelines in the aspect of three matters: 

  1. Directing CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) to conduct scrutiny in red light areas and police officers under whom these areas function 
  2. To bring all inmates of red light areas and those who are part of flesh trade, under State rehabilitation centers and provide them with medical, healthcare, and other basic facilities. 
  3. To bring children of prostitutes that are found begging, to protective homes, and rescue young girls from flesh trade racquets. 

Ratio Decidendi 

The court considered the matter one of great importance and noted that Article 23 of the constitution guarantees “Right against Exploitation” and prohibits human trafficking in any form. A contravention of this article is punishable. Moreover, Article 35(a)(ii) states that notwithstanding anything in the constitution, Parliament shall have (not the state legislature) the power to make laws for prescribing punishment against anything that is punishable under the constitution. The court also noted that subsections (e) and (f) of Article 39 of the constitution state that the state should direct its policy towards ensuring that children at a tender age are not abused, and youth are protected against exploitation and moral and material abandonment. The court also considered several other legislations that guarantee child protection. Such as the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956; The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986; Section 366-A, 366-B, 372,373 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

The Final decision of the court  

The court decided that a CBI inquiry through the lengths and widths of the entire country is not needed. This malady can only be eradicated through stringent law enforcement. In light of which the court made the following directions: 

  1. All-State Governments and Governments of UTs should direct law enforcement agencies to take speedy action in eradicating child prostitution. 
  2. State Governments and UTs should set up separate Advisory committees in their respective zones. 

Membership of the Committee: 

Secretary of the Social Welfare Department or Board, Secretary of Law Department, Sociologists, Criminologists, Members of Women’s Organizations, Members of Indian Council of Child Welfare, Members of Indian Council of Social Welfare, Members of Voluntary Social Organisations and Associations. 

  1.  All-State Governments and Governments of UTs should take adequate provisions of rehabilitation homes with medical facilities. 
  2. Union Government to set up a committee of its own in line with these guidelines with the aim of implementation of the national level of care, protection, and rehabilitation. 
  3. All-State Governments and Governments of UTs and Central Government to ensure proper implementation of these guidelines

Latest Posts

Archives

Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt

Posted on

This case brief is written by Sanskriti Goel, a 1st year law student from Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies and School of law, GGSIPU.

Citation

(1913) 11 ALJ 489

Relevant Act/Sections

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 :

Section 2(a):  When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, to obtain the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.

Section 2(b): When a person to whom the proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise.

Section 2(d): When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.

Section 8: Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal.

Brief Facts

  • The nephew of the defendant had absconded from home. He was nowhere to be found. The defendant sent his servants to various places in search of his nephew.
  • The plaintiff was one of the servants of the defendant and he was sent to Haridwar in search of the boy. He was given money for his travel fare and other expenses.
  • While the search for the boy was still going on, the defendant issued handbills offering a reward of ₹501 to anyone who might find his nephew and bring the boy back home.
  • The plaintiff succeeded in tracing the boy and brought him back to the defendant. As the plaintiff was unaware of the reward offered, he did not ask for it and continued working for the defendant.
  • After about 6 months, due to some disputes, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff from the job.
  • Afterward, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant claiming the reward of ₹501 that was due to him.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff

The plaintiff contended that the very performance of the task assigned to him was sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise since the plaintiff had successfully traced the boy and brought him back home and thus fulfilling the defendant’s conditions.

He affirmed that neither motive nor knowledge of the offer was not essential and hence, he was entitled to the reward.

Defendant

The defendant argued that there was no contract between the parties as there was no acceptance of the offer.

He also argued that the plaintiff, being his servant, was under an obligation to perform the task assigned to him, and therefore, such performance cannot be regarded as  sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise.

Legal Issues

  • Was there a valid acceptance to constitute a legally binding contract?
  • Was the plaintiff entitled to the reward that was offered by the defendant for tracing the boy?
  • Did tracing of the boy by the plaintiff can be regarded as sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise?

Ratio of the Case

In the case of Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, it was held that there can be no acceptance unless there is knowledge of the offer.

Although in the present case, the offer was a general offer where merely fulfilling the conditions of the offer itself is treated as an acceptance to create a contract but, fulfilling the conditions under the present case cannot be regarded as acceptance of the offer due to lack of knowledge of the offer.

Decision of the Allahabad High Court

The High Court observed that “A suit like the present can only be found on a contract. To constitute a contract, there must be an acceptance of the offer and there can be no acceptance unless there is knowledge of the offer. Motive is not essential but knowledge and intention are. Moreover, there was already a subsisting and therefore, the performance of the act cannot be regarded as a consideration for the defendant’s promise.”

Consequently, the suit was dismissed and the defendant was held not liable to pay the reward to the plaintiff.

Latest Posts

Archives