C. MUTHURANI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed, as a Public Interest Litigation, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent and the third respondent herein, to enforce the relevant provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the Rules framed thereunder, for ensuring the safety and the well being of the mentally challenged inmates, housed in Governmental Organisations and Other institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, who is the District President of the All India Democratic Women's Association of Madurai District, has filed the present Writ Petition, stating that in the Madurai Edition of the Tamil Newspapers, namely "Dinamalar" and "Dinamani", dated 06.06.2014, it had been reported that one Mehar Nisha, aged about 21 years, had been allegedly subjected to sexual abuse in a private 'Home' run, by the seventh respondent Trust, [hereinafter referred to as 'the Home']. It had also been reported that the victim had run out of the Home, in a nude condition, at about 02.00 p.m. on 05.06.2014. Upon enquiry, it had been found that she was an inmate of the Home and that she had been subjected to sexual abuse, by the employees of the Home. The victim had been admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. The said incident had resulted in agitations, by the Public. On further enquiry, it had been found that some of the other female inmates of the Home had also been sexually abused, by the employees of the Home. It had also been learnt that many inmates of the seventh respondent Home had died, under suspicious circumstances. The victim had also expressed her apprehension that some of the inmates might have been exploited and involved in the trading of their organs.

(2.) In such circumstances, this Court had passed an order, dated 19.06.2014, appointing V. Shyamala Devi, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Madurai District, to conduct an investigation, with regard to the alleged activities said to have taken place in the Home. D. Geetha, an Advocate, had also been appointed, as an Advocate Commissioner, to visit the Home, along with Rani Chakkaravarthi, a Psychologist, to ascertain the conditions prevailing therein, including the infrastructural facilities and the safety and the security of the inmates, maintenance of Records and Registers and the other connected matters.

(3.) This Court, had passed an order, dated 23.06.2014, for identifying the inmates, who are kept in the Home, without their consent. Mr. K. Chellapandiyan, the learned Additional Advocate General, had also been directed to get a Report from the Kilpauk Government Hospital, Chennai, with regard to the treatment being given to Mehar Nisha, who had been admitted in the said hospital for treatment. Based on the Report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by this Court, dated 19.06.2014, it had been found that there were 537 inmates in the Home. Among them, 171 of the inmates were women and 366 are men. Out of them, 91 inmates were said to be mentally challenged. No records had been produced by the Home, with regard to the said inmates.