- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sheela Barse And Another v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ application concerns the detention of children below sixteen years of age in various district and sub-jails across India. By orders dated 15 April 1986 and 5 August 1986, the Supreme Court directed every District Judge to appoint a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) or another Judicial Magistrate to inspect local jails, identify all child detainees, gather specified information about their cases, and submit reports to the Court. Compliance was to be routed through the respective High Courts.
The present order, dated 14 November 1986 (with a further order on 5 September 1986 regarding a connected criminal miscellaneous petition), records continued non-compliance by several districts and States, lists the defaulting districts, and issues fresh deadlines and directions. It also notes new allegations made by the petitioner about special schools at Lucknow and Ferozabad and about Amravati Jail. In a related proceeding, the Court orders preservation of institutional records concerning inmates of the Gajanan Maharaj Sikshan Sansthan pending an inquiry.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the concerned District Judges, State Governments and jail authorities have complied with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions to report on the detention of children under sixteen years of age.
- Whether the allegations of mistreatment and irregularities at the institution run by Gajanan Maharaj Sikshan Sansthan, as well as at special schools in Lucknow, Ferozabad, and Amravati Jail, warrant a governmental inquiry and interim safeguarding of records.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court notes with “anguish and concern” that, despite clear and repeated directions, several districts and States have failed to submit the mandated reports on child detainees. It therefore:
- Publishes a State-wise list of districts from which no reports have been received.
- Observes that certain States (Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh) have not filed the affidavits previously ordered.
- Flags the absence of information regarding sub-jails in fourteen districts of Maharashtra.
- Adjourns the matter to 2 December 1986 but directs Registrars of the relevant High Courts to secure full compliance by 30 November 1986, warning that “stringent action” may follow continued default.
- Records the petitioner's further allegations about special schools and Amravati Jail for consideration on the adjourned date.
- Expresses disappointment that neither the Union Ministry of Social Welfare nor the Central Social Welfare Board has filed any response, despite being parties to the writ.
In the connected criminal miscellaneous petition, the Court notes that the allegations against Gajanan Maharaj Sikshan Sansthan “disclose a disturbing state of affairs.” To facilitate a forthcoming governmental inquiry, it orders the CJM, Amravati, to take custody of all institutional records concerning the inmates, clarifying that this directive is precautionary and without prejudice to the merits of the allegations.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court adjourns the main writ petition to 2 December 1986, directs immediate compliance with its earlier orders by defaulting districts and States, and, in a related criminal miscellaneous petition, issues notice returnable on 19 September 1986 while ordering the CJM, Amravati, to seize and secure institutional records.
Implications: The decision reinforces the Court’s supervisory role over State and district authorities in safeguarding the rights of child detainees. Immediate practical effects include renewed deadlines, potential for contempt proceedings upon further default, and preservation of evidence for an anticipated inquiry into alleged institutional abuses. The order sets no new legal precedent but intensifies pressure on administrative authorities to comply with judicial mandates concerning juvenile justice.
Order
1. In this writ application relating to detention of children below the age of 16 years this Court has made directions from time to time. On April 15, 1986, the Court expressed its concern about the state of affairs relating to children under detention and directed:
“The District Judge in the country to nominate the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate to visit the District Jail and Sub-Jail in their districts for the purpose of ascertaining how many children below the age of 16 years are confined in jail, what are the offences in respect of which they are charged, how many of them have been in detention — whether in the same jail or previously in any other jail — before being brought to the jail in question, whether they have been produced before the children's court and, if so, when and how many times and also directed that each District Judge will give utmost priority to this direction and the Superintendent of each jail in the district will provide full assistance to the District Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, in this behalf who will be entitled to inspect the registers of the jail visited by him as also any other document/documents which he may want to inspect and will also interview the children if he finds it necessary to do so for the purpose of gathering the correct information in case of any doubt. The District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, will submit report to this Court within 10 weeks from today.”
This Court again directed by its order dated August 5, 1986 that:
“... every defaulting District Judge who has not yet submitted his report shall unfailingly comply with the direction and furnish the report by August 31, 1986, through the High Court and the Registrar of every High Court shall ensure that compliance with the present direction is made.”
2. Notwithstanding our expression of anguish and concern and the specific directions referred to above, it transpires that there has been no compliance from certain quarters. For convenience, we proceed to indicate below the particulars Statewise:
Name of the State Name of the district from where no report has been received Assam Barpeta Lakhimpur Darrang Kabri-Anglong North Cachar Pragiyotishpur Manipur Bishnupur Chandel Churandarpur Senapati Tamenglang Thoubai Ukhrul Meghalaya East Garo Hills West Garo Hills Jainitia Hills West Khasi Hills Bihar Godda Gumla Khagaria Lotiardagga Medhapura Sahebganj Maharashtra Greater Bombay Gadchiroli Akola Uttar Pradesh Rai Bareli Mathura Shahajahanpur
3. Some of the States like, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have not filed any affidavit though there was a previous direction requiring the States to indicate their stand by filing affidavits.
4. In regard to sub-jails, no reports have been received in respect of such jails of 14 districts of Maharashtra. Though this matter was listed on November 14, 1986 for final disposal, an adjournment became imperative in view of the failure of compliance with the directions in the manner indicated above and the matter is adjourned till December 2, 1986. We direct the Registrars of the High Courts of the States in which the districts indicated above are located to ensure compliance with the previous directions by November 30, 1986. We hope and trust that special care will be taken to ensure compliance and this Court will not be forced to take any stringent action.
5. The petitioner has made certain allegations regarding the special schools at Lucknow and Ferozabad. Some allegations have also been made in regard to Amravati Jail. These aspects will be considered on the adjourned date of hearing.
6. We would like to indicate that the Union of India is a respondent and this Court expected that the Social Welfare Ministry would respond to the notice, place its stand before the court and assist it for a proper disposal of the matter. Similarly, the court also expects the Central Social Welfare Board to participate in the proceedings. There has, however, been no response from these quarters.
7. Call the matter on December 2, 1986 for hearing.
Order Passed on September 5, 1986
(Coram P.N Bhagwati, C.J and S. Natarajan, J.)
Order
1. Issue notice on the criminal miscellaneous petition returnable on September 19, 1986. Since the allegations made in the Cr;. MP are of a dubious character and they disclose a disturbing state of affairs in the institution being run by Gajanan Maharaj Sikshan Sansthan, it will be desirable not only in the interest of inmates of the institution but also in the interest of the institution itself that the allegations should be inquired into by the State Government and it is for this purpose that we are issuing notice to the respondents. We would like to direct in the meanwhile that in order to facilitate the inquiry which may be ordered by us after hearing the parties, the records in regard to the inmates of the institution should be taken possession of by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and these records may remain with the Chief Judicial Magistrate until further orders of this Court. We may make it clear that it is on the basis of the allegations made in the petition that we are making this order and we presently express no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made.
2. A copy of the order may be communicated to the respondent as also to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati.
Alert