SHEELA BARSE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 05-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHEELA BARSE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Public Interest Litigation-Wlit-Allegi,ng deplorable conditions in jails 
detaining insane woman and children-Investigation-Order by Supreme 
Cowt-Implementation of-Directions for monitoring of 
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court(i) appointed 
Commissioners to investigate and report on the deplorable conditions in 
which mentally ill and insane women and children were detained in the 
jails and (ii) ·passed several orders from time to time. With a view to 
monitoring the implementation of its orders this Court gave the following 
directions : 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
The office shall prepare requisite number of sets of the record 
of this case in two parts. part-I shall contain the letter written 
by the petitioner, the orders passed by this Court from time 
to time and the reports of the Commissioners appointed by 
this Court. [352-E-F] 
The affidavits, counter affidavits, rejoinders, and further af-
fidavits, if any along with their Annexures shall be separated 
for each State concerned. Any affidavit!>, reports or other 
documents filed by the Union of India may be included in each 
of such sets. This shall be treated as Part-U of the record. The 
cost of preparing both Parts-I and II shall be borne by the 
Union of India. [352-F-G] 
A copy ·of the record shall be communicated to each of ·the 
High Courts. Along with Part-I, Part II relating to that par-
ticular State shall also be enclosed. [353-A] 
The High Courts are requested to register the record so 
received by them as a Public Interest Litigation. The Hon'ble 
Chief Justice of each of the High Courts ·is requested to 
350 
SHEELA BAR.SE v. U.O.I. 
351 
designate a Judge of that Court to deal with the matter. The A 
High Courts shall make all such necessary and appropriate 
orders as may be warranted, from time to time, for proper 
implementation of the orders of this Court or as may be found 
necessary or appropriate to protect and improve the condi-
tions obtaining in places where women and children - not 
accused or convicted of any crime - are detained. [353-B-C] 
B 
5. 
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. Relevant record shall be communicated to the 
respective Legal Aid Board in the High Court. The High Court C 
Legal Aid and Advice Board will assist the High Court in the 
matter of monitoring compliance with the orders and direc-
tions made by this Court. [353-D-E] 
6. 
The High Court of Assam shall ensure that the State of Assam 
complies with the several suggestions made in the report of D 
the Commissioner and the order made by this Court on 
October, 3, 1994 on the basis of the said report. [353-G] 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Miscellaneous 
Petition No. 505 of 1994. 
IN 
Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 237 of 1989. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Harish N.Salve, S.N. Choudhary, N.N. Goswami, and V.C. Mahajan, 
E 
F 
S. Murlidhar, A. Sharan, A. K. Sinha, Ms. Shalini Kumar, Ms. Indu 
Malhotra, Ashok Srivastava, T.C. Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Naresh K. 
Sharma, Ranbir Yadav, R.S. Suri, P. Parmeshwaran, Krishan Mahajan, 
K.V. Venkataraman, N. Sharma, M. Mudgal, D.K. Sinha and J. R. Dass G 
for the Appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A letter from Ms. Sheela Barse addressed to the Hon'ble Chief 
Justice of India with respect to the deplorable conditions in which mentally H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
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. 
When this matter was placed before us on August 21, 1995, it was 
suggested by Sri 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.