Delhi High Court

Court On Its Own Motion vs U.O.I. & Anr. on 25 May, 2011

Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice

$~12.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       W.P.(C) 5913/2010

                                          Date of Order: 25th May, 2011

        COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION                     ..... Petitioner
                        Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr.
                        Advocate with Mr. Gautam Talukdar &
                        Ms. Shakunt Saumitra, Advocates.
                        Ms. Anubha Rastogi, Advocate for Ms.
                        Jayshree Satpute, Amicus Curiae.
                   Versus
        U.O.I. & ANR.                         ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel & Ms. Zeenat Maroodi & Mr. Shoaib Haider, Advocates for GNCTD.

Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

DIPAK MISRA, CJ.:

This Public Interest Litigation was initiated suo motu by

this Court on the basis of a newspaper report dated 29th August,

2010 published in „Hindustan Times‟ that a destitute woman, on

a busy street, breathed her last after giving birth to a baby girl,

namely, Karishma, who was struggling for life at a foster home,

namely, „Udayan‟. Thereafter, the matter moved from a small

canvass to a larger canvass, namely, how to give protection and

facilities to the destitute and lactating women.

2. On various dates, number of directions were issued and it

is appropriate to refer to our earlier order passed on 23rd March,

2011. It reads as follows:

"Heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Jayshree Satpute and Mr. Najmi Waziri, learned Standing Counsel for the GNCTD. Mr. Waziri has filed a set of guidelines, viz., draft guidelines for running the shelter homes for destitute pregnant and lactating women. The same has been served on Mr. Bhushan and Ms. Satpute. It is worth noting that Ms. Satpute has filed the status report and in the said report she has given certain suggestions. Mr. Bhushan, in course of hearing of this petition, has given the following suggestions:

(a) The period of stay of the pregnant or lactated mother should not be a restricted to six months/one year and if eventually if she is found to be homeless and economically totally downtrodden, shelter homes for such category of women should be established and some kind of vocational training should be imparted to them so that they would be in a position to earn livelihood.

(b) The draft guidelines indicate that a child above six years would be separated from the mother as they are not allowed to stay with the mother admitted to the shelter home. It is submitted that is very difficult to accept that a 7/8 year old child should be separated from the mother at that stage and, therefore, the State has to appropriately think and

come with a more holistic policy/guidelines.

(c) The children when they are separated from their mothers should be sent to child care homes instead of any other place so that the child shall stay in a more amiable and friendly atmosphere developing social values.

(d) The State Government may consider having shelter homes in more centralized locations so that women in need have easy and immediate access.

(e) The awareness campaign and dissemination of information should be more accentuated so that the people would know about the shelter homes and the facilities available therein.

2. Mr. Waziri, learned Standing Counsel shall discuss with the competent authorities of the State Government and file a comprehensive policy keeping in view the suggestions given by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel and Ms. Satupte, whose suggestions we have recorded hereinabove.

3. Having regard to the suggestions given by Ms. Satpute and Mr. Bhushan, one thing strikes that children who are juvenile and belong to economically weaker and marginalized section of the society due to various reasons sometimes take drugs and, therefore, the GNCTD must establish de- addiction centres which should be fully equipped. Be it noted, a de-addiction centre is coming up in the juvenile home at Sewa Kutir. All efforts shall be made to make it functional within a week hence. Needless to say, when we say the pending construction

of a new home, the building which has been demarcated for the de-addiction centre, shall be functional for all purposes. Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned senior counsel, who is present in the Court, is requested to visit the de-addiction centre at Sewa Kutir and submit a report. Mr. Nigam has fairly stated that he will visit the de-addiction centre immediately and thereafter as and when required and a progress report shall be placed before this Court.

4. Call on 30th March, 2011, only for the purpose of obtaining the status report from Mr. Nigam and Ms. Satpute with regard to de-addiction centre and also the status report by Mr. Waziri. As far as all other aspects are concerned, the matter shall be taken up on 25th May, 2011.

Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under signature of the Court Master."

3. Today, an affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Director

(Women Empowerment Cell). The relevant part of the said

affidavit reads as follows:

"2. It is submitted that the suggestions given by learned Amicus Curiae are being incorporated in the guidelines which are being redrafted in consultation with YWCA, the NGO which is running both the Shelter Homes (at Jehangirpuri and Sarai Rohilla) on the basis of their practical experience.

3. That both the Shelter Homes are functional. Six destitute pregnant and four lactating women were admitted to these

shelters. The sources of admission have been Railway, Police, NGOS and needy women themselves availing the facility. Two babies have been delivered safely at the said shelters.

4. A para-wise reply to the suggestion given by learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Jayant Bhushan on the draft guidelines is placed below:

a. The period of stay of the pregnant/lactating mother will be for a period of one year. If she is not "mainstreamed" in this period, she will be transferred to the short stay homes already in existing in Delhi, where she would be provided with life skills.

b. Children above the age of 10 years, who will be separated from their mother who are admitted in Shelter Homes, will be sent to the Children Homes through Child Welfare Committee which are functioning under Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act 2000.

c. They will be provided boarding, lodging, education, health care, recreation, and other required facilities for their holistic development.

d. The present Shelter Homes for Destitute, Pregnant and Lactating Women have been selected at their locations, keeping in mind the prospective beneficiaries.

e. The awareness generation campaign on these Shelter Homes is being done through outdoor media and

electronic media on a regular basis, so that the information about the facilities available in these shelter homes is disseminated to the public. The campaign is being revisited to make it more comprehensive and extensive."

4. At this stage, a suggestion has been given by Mr. Jayant

Bhushan, learned senior counsel that when the State is going to

frame a guideline in consultation with the YWCA, it would be

appropriate to take suggestions from the NGOs, who have been

fighting cause of destitute and lactating women. Mr. Najmi

Waziri, learned Standing Counsel for GNCTD has no objection.

5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, Ms. Anubha

Rastogi and Ms. Jayshree Satpute, learned counsel are

requested to give their suggestions after receiving the guidelines

from Mr. Waziri within a period of two weeks. The said

suggestions shall be given to Mr. Waziri, who in turn shall send it

to the competent authority so that a comprehensive policy can

be framed regard being had to the delicate nature of the issue.

6. Before we part with the case, we may note with profit that

on the first occasion a claim for adoption was put forth by Ms.

Ritu Arthur Fredrik but she is presently not interested to

adopt the child. In view of the aforesaid, the concerned NGO,

namely, „Udyan‟ has liberty to give the child on adoption within