LAWS(CAL)-2005-11-4

TAPAS KUMAR BHANJA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On November 18, 2005
TAPAS KUMAR BHANJA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition was filed in 2000 by a public spirited lawyer Shri Bhanja. This was predominantly a complaint regarding a home called "Liluah Home" for the undertrial women. The grievance made in the petition was that there was over all mismanagement in this Home. That the lady prisoners are not at all safe, lot of injustice is perpetrated, they are physically and mentally molested, they are not even provided elementary medical treatment and that there was overall mismanagement. The learned counsel had also pointed out that number of lady prisoners escaped from the home not to be found again and thus this was a case where there was a gross abuse of human rights.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Justice Ashok Kumar Mathur (as His Lordship then was) and the Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta passed an order on 4th May, 2001 transmitting the matter to Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commission was directed to depute some of the officers to see that the condition of Liluah Home are improved. The Bench also directed the Human Rights Commission to monitor from time to time the conditions in the said Home. With this order the Division Bench disposed of the petition.

(3.) However, thereafter, from time to time applications came to made or and the matter came to be mentioned before various Benches dealing with public interest litigation at the instance of Shri Bhanja. On 11th March, 2005 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Justice Ganguly, Acting Chief Justice (As His Lordship then was) and the Hon'ble Justice Tapan Kumar Dutt again passed an order whereby a second team of Human Rights Commission was directed to take an in-depth inspection of the inmates. The Bench directed that the report should be presented in a sealed cover within a period of four weeks. The team was directed as to whether the identify of the juvenile was established with photographs under Rule 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 2000.