UPENDRA BAXI I Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this writ petition came up for hearing before us on 8/05/1981 we made an order giving various directions in order to ensure that the inmates of the Protective Home at Agra do not continue to live in inhuman and degrading conditions and that the right to live. with dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is made real and meaningful for them. We gave to the State government which is running thehome, the entire period of vacation for carrying out these directions. Miss Srivastava, Superintendent of the Home, has filed an affidavit before us setting out the action taken by the State government with a view to complying with these directions.

(2.) Before we proceed to consider how far the directions made by us have been complied with we should like to mention that Miss Srivastava has insinuated in paragraph 2 of her affidavit that the present petition has been filed by Dr. Baxi and Mrs Lotika Sarkar "as a last resort to compel the government to leave the present accommodation" and their sole object is to secure that the building where the Home is located may be vacated by the government. We are surprised that such a baseless insinuation should have been made by a responsible person like the Superintendent of the Home. The suggestion of a collusion between the landlord of the building on the one hand and Dr. Upendra Baxi and Mrs Lotika Sarkar on the other, is most reprehensible and we unhesitatingly condemn it in the strongest terms. Dr. Upendra Baxi and Mrs Lotika Sarkar have filed the petition as a "public interest" litigation with a view to ensuring to the inmates of the Home the right to live. With human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and what they have stated in their petition and in the subsequent memoranda filed by them is not only borne out by the report of Shri N. K. Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate made on 18/11/1980 but also by the subsequent reports. We very much wish that such an insinuation had not been made by MISS Srivastava.

(3.) We are also surprised to learn from paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Miss Srivastava that not a single woman or girl has been sent to the Home under Ss. (2) of S. 10 or Ss. (2) of' S. 17 or Ss. (2) of S. 19 of the Suppression, of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'act'). The Home has been established by the government as a Protective Home under the Act and we fail to understand how is it that not a single woman or girl has ever been sent to the Home under the' provisions of the Act. We should like to know from the State government as to how many Protective Homes established or licensed by the State government under the provisions of the Act and the Uttar Pradesh Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "rules") are there in the State of Uttar Pradesh and how many women or girls are sent to these Protective Homes under the provisions of the Act.