LexBUDHADEV KARMASKAR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 11 S.C.R. 397 BUDHADEV KARMASKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] A B Public Interest Litigation - Sex workers - Problems of - Panel had been set up vide earlier Court order dated 19.07.2011 with Mr. Pradip Ghosh, Senior Advocate, as its C Chairman - Suggestions made by the Panel in its Third Interim report dated 12.09.2011 - Held: The suggestions are good - Sex workers face great difficulty in getting ration cards, voter's identity cards or in opening bank accounts, etc. - The authorities should see to it that sex workers do not face these D difficulties as they are also citizens of India and have the same fundamental rights as others - Suggestions made by the Panel in its Third Interim Report be seriously taken into consideration by the Central Government, the State Governments and other authorities and hence all efforts be E made to implement these suggestions expeditiously - Without a proper office and infrastructure the Panel will not be able to discharge its duties properly - Therefore, again the Central Government and the State Government of Delhi are requested to do the needful in this connection expeditiously F - In pursuance of earlier order dated 24.08.2011 the Central Government has deposited a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh with the Secretary General of Supreme Court - Some of the States/ Union Territories have made payment as directed by Supreme Court - However, some of the States/Union G Territories are yet to make payment - Those States or Union Territories which have not yet made payment are directed to make payment within three weeks (except those which have no sex workers) - Amount deposited with the Secretary 397 H 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R. A General of Supreme Courl be transferred to the account of the Panel in the UCO Bank, Supreme Courl Compound Branch- Case be listed on 15.11.2011 by which time another reporl shall be submitted by the Panel. B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2007 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 487 of 2004. C Solicitor General of India. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Pradip Ghosh, Jayant Bhushan, T.S. Doabia, Ashok Bhan, A. Mariarputham, S. Sundaravaradhan, Anand Grover, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, Manjit Singh, S.V. Madhukar, A.AG., Pijush K. Roy, Rebbeca George, Gautam Talukdar, Lajja Ram, D Gaurav Sharma, Zaid Ali, Sushma Suri, Wasim Quadri, Anjani Aiyagari, Anil Katiyar, Sadhna Sandhu, S.S. Rawat, D.S. Mahra, lrshad Ahmad, Anitha Shenoy, Sandeep Singh, Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma, D. Mahesh, Babu, Ramesh Allanki, Savita Dhanda, V. Pattabhi Ram, Riku Sarma, Navnit Kumar (for E Corporate Law Group), Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Anjani Aiyagari, S. Wasim A. Quadiri, A.J. Faisal, Hemantika Wahi, Ashwani Kumar, Tarjit Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Abhishek Sood, Rohit Kr. Singh, Sunil Fernandes, Suhaas R. Joshi, Astha Sharma, P.V. Dinesh, F Rupesh Babu, Liz Mathew, Jogy Scaria, Sanjay V. Kh~rde (for Asha Gopalan Nair), Kh. Nobin Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, Radha· Shyam Jena, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, H.S. Sandhu, K.K. Pandey, M. Mohit Mudgil, Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Yusuf Khan Aruputham Aruna & Co. Aniruddha P. Mayee, G Chanchal Kr. Ganguly, Abhijit Sengupta, T.C. Sharma, Anil K. Jha, Chhaya Kumari, S.K. Diwakar, Atul Jha, Dharmendra Kr. Sinha, Vibha Datta Makhija, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu, Ramasubramanian, Savita Singh, Tripti Tandon, Amritananda Chakravorty, Mihir Samson, Prakash Kumar Singh, Ravi Kant, A. Subhashini, C.D. Singh, K.N. H BUDHADEV KARMASKAR v STATE OF \NEST 399 BENGAL Madhsoodhanan, M.T. George, Subramonium, Prasad, J.K. A Bhatia, Manpreet Singh Doabia, Kiran Bhardwaj, Edward Belho, C.H. Kennedy, K. inatoli Serna, Nimshim Voshum, Ranja~ Mukherjee for the appearing parties. The following order of the Court was delivered 8 ORDER Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the parties. c This case was initially a criminal appeal, but later was converted into a Public Interest Litigation suo motu by our order dated 14th February, 2011. By that order we dismissed the criminal appeal of the appellant and upheld his conviction. However, we were of the opinion that the problems of sex 0 workers required urgent attention by this Court.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.