SHEELA BARSE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 29-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHEELA BARSE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 1988 
. 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. YENKATACHAL!AH, JJ.] 
Constitution of IndJa, Art 32'._Public Interest Litigation-With-
drawal of Petition by petitioner-in-person not allowed-No litigant can 
be permitted to impose any condition for his participation in the 
proceedings-Petitioner may be allowed to withdraw himself from the 
proceedings-Information relating to the case gathered by the petitioner 
during pendency of the proceedings-Petitioner not entitled to use such 
mformation after withdrawal/deletion of his name from 
the 
case. 
A 
B 
c 
Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I-Sec. 2(c)-Delay in final disposal 
D 
of public interest litigation-Criticism of-High lighting public accoun-
tability of courts-Whether contempt of court. 
The p_etitioner had filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1451 of 
1985 in· the Supreme Court praying that the respondents-States be 
directed: (a) to release all children detained in the jails in the res-
E 
pondent-States; (b) to furnish complete information respecting all 
children detained in the States and the circumstances and the legal 
facts of such detention and the number of available juvenile courts and 
children homes; ( c) to appoint district judges of the districts to visit 
.jails, sub-jails and lock~ups to identify and release children in such 
illegal detention; (d) to requisition immediately necessary buildings and 
F 
provide infrastructure and make immediate interim arrangements for 
'places of housing' of children facing trial before juvenile courts. The 
petition also sought directions to the respective States, Legal Aid 
Boards, District Legal Aid Committees through the appointment of 
'duty-counsel' to ensure protection of the rights of the children etc. 
The said petition was treated as a public interest litigation and in 
regard to most of the areas covered by the aforesaid prayers, orders were 
made from time to time oy this Court. 
However, being dissatisfied with the progress of the case, the 
G 
petitiOner preferred a Misc. PethJon for leave to withdraw the main 
H 
-
~ 
. 
I 
643 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
public interest litigation on the grounds: (I) that the Supreme Court has 
become "dysfunctional" in relation to, and in the context of, the gra-
vity of the violations of the rights of children and the urgenc)'. of the 
requisite remedial steps and that though the proceedings were listed for 
final disposal in the month of November, 1986 however, owing to un-
justified adjournments obtained by the respondents and owing further, 
B 
to the functional deficiencies of the procedure of this court the proceed-
ings have not yet been finally disposed of; (2) that the Court has not 
been able to exact prompt compliance with its own orders and direc-
tions, issued from time to time, from the respondents; (3) that the 
applicant is disabled from conducting proceedings with "dignity" as 
certain happenings in Court had the effect of casting and tended to cast 
a slur on her integrity and dignity: and (4) that the proceedings were 
C 
brought as a "voluntary action" and that applicant is entitled to sustain 
her right to be the "petitioner-in-person" in a public interest litigation 
and that the proceedings cannot be proceeded with after delinking her 
from the proceedings. 
D 
Dismissing the criminal miscellaneous petition, 
HELD: (I) The permission to' withdraw the main petition is 
refused and it is directed that the applicant he deleted from the array of 
parties in this proceeding. The proceedings shall now be proceeded with 
a direction to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee to prosecute the 
E petition together with the aid and assistance of such persons or agencies 
as the Court may permit or direct from time to time. [667B-C] 
l(ii) The order dated 5.8.1986 and 13.8.1986 forbidding the ap-
plicant from using the ihformation collected by her during her visits to 
jails and other custodial institutions cannot be modified during the 
IF 
pendency of the proceedings as the information was gathered for 
purposes of the case and pursuant to the directions of this Court. [6670] 
G 
2(i) The "rights" of those who bring the action on behalf of the 
others must necessarily be subordinate to the ''interests'' of those for 
whose benefit the action is brought. [652C] 
2(ii) In a public interest litigation, unlike traditional dispute-
resolution-mechanism, there is no determination or adjudicatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.