#SupremeCourt – Page 8

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:

Directing CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) to conduct scrutiny in red light areas and police officers under whom these areas function
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.
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:

All-State Governments and Governments of UTs should direct law enforcement agencies to take speedy action in eradicating child prostitution.
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.

All-State Governments and Governments of UTs should take adequate provisions of rehabilitation homes with medical facilities.
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.
All-State Governments and Governments of UTs and Central Government to ensure proper implementation of these guidelines

Latest Posts

Archives

-Report by Anuj Dhar

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday quashed the case against Dua for his alleged comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his YouTube show. A bench consisting of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran decided to rescind FIR No.0053 and free the petitioner of charges.

Key Highlights

Vinod Dua, the petitioner, is an Indian journalist and also has a show on YouTube namely The Vinod Dua show.
On 30th March 2020, the petitioner made hurtful allegations against the government and stated unfounded facts against the Prime Minister of India.
On 6th May 2020, FIR No.0053 was filed by a BJP leader against the petitioner which pointedly referred to two segments in the talk show and generally dealt with the number of allegations made by the petitioner in said talk show to submit that the actions on part of the petitioner amounted to offences punishable under penal provisions referred to in the FIR.
After the review of the FIR, it was decided that the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the present crime. However, the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the Police force through Video Conferencing or Online mode.
On June 14th, 2020, the Supreme Court held a special sitting to take up a writ petition by Vinod Dua to quash the FIR lodged against him by a BJP leader in Shimla.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Being a renowned journalist, the petitioner was entitled to and did nothing more than critical analysis of the functioning and the actions of the Government.

He was touching upon issues of great concern so that adequate attention could be given to the prevailing problems.
The petitioner did his duty to bring forward the dispassionate and critical appraisal of the Government. Dua’s actions were covered by Explanations 2 and 3 of Section 124A, IPC3, and exception to Section 505 IPC3 and were within his Right of Free Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
No FIR should be registered against a person belonging to media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the Committee as suggested.

Contentions of the Respondent

Mr. Vinod Dua is spreading fake and malicious news by stating that the Prime Minister has garnered votes through acts of terrorism. This directly amounts to inciting violence amongst the citizens and will further disturb public tranquility. This is an act of instigating violence against the government of India and the Prime Minister. Whoever makes or circulates false claims, alarms, or warnings relating to a disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to the panic of the citizens of the country, shall on conviction, will be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 1 year or with fine.

The Decision by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday quashed the case against Dua for his alleged comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his YouTube show, saying a verdict of the year 1962, namely Kedar Nath Singh, entitles every journalist to protection. The prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging to media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the Committee was rejected by the Supreme Court. Writ Petition was allowed to the aforesaid extent and FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh was quashed.

Relevant Sections

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 124A, 268, 501 and 505
Disaster Management Act – Section 52, 54.
Article 32 in The Constitution of India 1949
Article 19(1)(a) in The Constitution of India 1949

Asaram Bapu who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for raping a teenage girl in his ashram has now recently filed a bail application in Supreme Court. After getting to know this the victim’s father has moved to Supreme Court, opposing the bail plea of Asaram Bapu.

The rape victim’s father state’s that Asaram Bapu will organize revenge killing of him, his families, and eyewitnesses if bail is been granted. He submitted that the petitioner is highly influential and has a political connection and also millions of blind followers. Many eyewitnesses have already been attacked in the past by the accused and recently the applicant himself has been threatened by Asaram Bapu’s connection. And in case bail is granted to him then it is likely that he and his family will be attacked and also he has hired Kartik Haldar who killed and attacked an eyewitness who confessed to the police.

The motive of the accused is evident by various moves of the accused such as recently the petitioner has been attempting to change the venue of his custody; the accused is also deliberately delaying the pending trial at Gandhi Nagar and Jodhpur even though he is stable and fit. Rajasthan government has also told the top court that Asaram Bapu is fit and stable but trying to change the venue of his custody deliberately.

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

The Delhi High Court has restricted TRACTOR2TWITTER, claiming itself to be an internet network of individuals inquisitive about Farmers Protests, from making defamatory posts towards information channel AajTak on its social media accounts, after forming a prima facie opinion that the alleged posts uploaded with the aid of using it have been defamatory that used objectionable and abusive language.

In the period in-between order surpassed through the single bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli, the Court determined thus: “Having perused the numerous tweets that have been posted through Defendant Nos.1 to a few in addition to the posts of Defendant No. 1 on its Facebook page, Instagram account, and respectable Telegram channel, I am of the prima facie opinion that they include wild allegations, are defamatory and use objectionable and abusive language in opposition to the plaintiff, its Aaj Tak new channel and its personnel. Such a marketing campaign in opposition to the Plaintiff, its ‘Aaj Tak’ information channel and its personnel may be extraordinarily destructive to their recognition and additionally, purpose private harm to them.”

Advocate Baruah acting for AajTak submitted earlier than the Court that TRACTOR2TWITTER had on thirtieth May 2021 launched seven posters on its legitimate Telegram Channel containing the channel’s emblem thereby calling it anti-farmer, venomous, toxic, communal.

Considering the “destructive nature” of the tweets and posts relied upon via way of means of the plaintiff channel, the Court discovered that there’s a prima facie case made out in favor of it “The plaintiff, a well-mounted media company, its ‘AajTak’ information channel, and their personnel could go through irreparable damage to their popularity if no intervening time safety is granted to them immediately. Consequently, this Court reveals it healthy to supply an intervening time injunction in favor of the plaintiff and opposition to the defendants in phrases of prayer (a) of the software beneath neath Order XXXIX Rules 1 and a couple of CPC.”. The court ordered.

Moreover, the Court additionally directed Twitter, Facebook, and Telegram to put off or take down the defamatory posts/articles/all content material bearing on the News Channel and block the URLs/internet hyperlinks as relied upon with the aid of using it.

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

The Jaspal Singh Gosain versus CBI case, otherwise called the Ranbir Singh counterfeit experience case, is a criminal case in the Uttarakhand province of India, that occurred on 3 July 2009, and included fake encounter killing of Ranbir Singh, a 22-year-old MBA graduate in Dehradun.

18 cops of the Uttarakhand Police were sent up for preliminary investigation after the murder of the Ranbir Singh. Delhi court sees seven of them as liable of homicide, 10 of them of criminal conspiracy and kidnapping to murder and another is indicted for destruction of proof.

The Delhi High Court, in 2014, affirmed the conviction for the offences of the cops under Sections 302 (Punishment for Murder) and 364 (Kidnapping or stealing to kill), read with Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) IPC. The Supreme Court on June 8th, heard the bail plea of one of the police officer serving life imprisonment for the 2009 fake encounter in Dehradun for murdering a 20-year-old MBA understudy.

The bench relied on the order dated January 13,2021 which said “The Learned Additional Solicitor General has no objection to release the appellant purely on humanitarian grounds on interim bail.” The Bench allowed the opportunity to the state to record its answer and listed the matter for hearing on next Tuesday.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

The Supreme Court made a preliminary observation last week and held that the central vaccine policy that does not provide free vaccination for the 18-44 age group is arbitrary and unreasonable.

On Monday, June 7, 2021, Prime Minister Modi announced that free jabs will be provided to everyone above 18 years of age. This is a great example of the power of judicial review.

The Supreme Court raised questions regarding vaccine policy with the center last week. He asked the center to review its vaccination policy. Noting that the center promoted and financed the production of vaccines through concessions, the Supreme Court requested clarification as to whether it stated precisely that private entities are the only ones who bear the risks and manufacturing costs. The financial budget for 2021-22 has been designated Rs 35 billion for the procurement of vaccines, and the Supreme Court had instructed the center to provide data and documents to clarify the use of these funds so far and why they cannot be used to vaccinate people aged 18 to 44 years.

Monday, in his address to the country, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that the central government will provide free vaccines to people aged 18 to 44 and has decided to buy 75% of vaccines from vaccine manufacturers, including 25% of the quota. national, and provide free vaccines to countries. Considering that when the constitutional rights of citizens are violated by central policies, the courts cannot be “silent bystanders.” The judge criticized the vaccination policy in an order published on June 2, calling it “ostensibly arbitrary and unreasonable” “and ordered that it should be reviewed.

-Report by Muskan Chanda

SC will continue to proceed with the hearings concerning children who have lost one or both parents, who have been abandoned or orphaned due to COVID-19.

On 28th May, The bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose had directed all the local authorities of districts to upload the information of children who became orphans or got abandoned by their families due to the ongoing pandemic on ‘Bal Swaraj’ the portal of NCPCR before 29th May. As per the reports of, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, 1742 children have become orphans and 7464 children have lost either of their parents during the pandemic.

On May 29, 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the scheme for these children which is ‘PM Cares for Children”.
According to the available information about the scheme, children who have lost both the parents or surviving parent or legal guardian/ adopted parents during COVID-19 shall be the beneficiaries of aid from the Central Government, but the scheme needs to be worked out. Till now, nobody is aware of how many children will be benefited from the scheme and how it will be implemented. The Centre has been provided some time to apprise about the scheme and execute it.

Today, Supreme Court has passed orders concerning orphaned children and directed authorities:

To stop illegal adoption of children orphaned by Covid. Public advertisements for adoptions are unlawful.
The state gov. /union territories are directed to prevent any NGO from collecting funds in the names of affected children disclosing their identities and giving them for adoption.
Stringent action shall be taken by the state gov. /union territories against agencies or individuals who are involved in the illegal activities related to the adoption of children.
No adoption will be allowed of Covid orphaned children according to the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. No adoption is permitted without the involvement of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).

–Report by Muskan Chanda

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking equality in the treatment of authorized journalists and unauthorized journalists for the needs of compensation and other benefits granted by the Central and state governments amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A few state governments have declared journalists as frontline workers; however, the Central government has still not proclaimed the thought. The intervention application (IA) assails the special drive under the Central government’s Journalist Welfare Scheme (JWS) because it doesn’t cover “non-accredited journalists”. Thus, it violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The plea cited figures of journalists who gave up the ghost within the line of duty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between April 1, 2020, and May 19, 2021, there are 253 verified deaths of journalists thanks to COVID-19 and 93 unverified deaths. The Centre had launched a special drive under the JWS to assist the immediate families of these media journalists who died due to Covid-19. According to the rules under the scheme, accreditation details of the journalist need to be provided. Point 3(ii) (a) and (b) of the guidelines state that “media personnel” will not include people who are at a managerial level or in a supervisory capacity. This leaves an outsized number of persons including unaccredited journalists, technical, managerial, and supervisory staff employed with media organizations alongside unaccredited freelance journalists and stringers who are bereft of any relief or benefits under the scheme.

As per Rule 6.1 of the rules, the eligibility conditions for correspondents/camera persons to avail of the scheme are “minimum 15 years professional experience as a full-time working journalist”. This leaves out an outsized number of journalists who are going to not tend to any benefits after dying within the line of duty due to COVID-19. The mere non-accreditation which is merely a recognition provided by the govt for purposes of access to sources of data, won’t be covered under the scheme. Thus, it’s no parity and is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. The applicant stated that she surveyed 70 journalists/media persons who died of COVID-19 and located out that only 6 percent of them were accredited to the Press Information Bureau. 37 percent were accredited to the government and 57 percent were without accreditation. The difference between the authorized and unauthorized journalists/media person by both the central and therefore the state governments are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The plea was settled by Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid and filed through advocate Lubna Naaz.

Report By- Sana Sheikh

Tag: #SupremeCourt

Vishal Jeet vs UOI and Other States and Union Territories

Petition Number

Equivalent Citation

Bench

Date of Judgment

Relevant Act

Relevant Articles

Summary of the Petition

Ratio Decidendi

The Final decision of the court

Supreme Court Rescinds the Case Against Famous Journalist Vinod Dua

On Bail Plea of Asaram Bapu, Victim’s Father Moves to Supreme Court

Obscene and Abusive Language: Delhi Supreme Court Prohibits TRACTOR2TWITTER from Posting Defamatory Information Against AajTak on Social Media

Supreme Court Hears Bail Plea of Policeman Serving Life Imprisonment for Fake Encounter

Free COVID Jabs to Everyone Above 18: Power of Judicial Review

Supreme Court asks Centre to Detail Scheme for Children Orphaned due to COVID

Plea Filed Before the Supreme Court Concerning Violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution