Human Rights of Persons in Government Protective Homes to be Protected

Dr. Upendra Baxi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Filed under: Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Petitioner: Dr. Upendra Baxi
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Citation: (1983) 2 SCC 308
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: PN Bhagwati and O Chinnappa Reddy

Facts

This is a public interest litigation filed by Dr. Upendra Baxi and Mrs. Lotika Sarkar seeking court’s directions to the State Government to protect the basic human rights of the inmates of the protective home at Agra which was established under the provisions of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956.

The Supreme Court gave certain directions to the Uttar Pradesh state Government and the Administrators of the previously mentioned Protective home, to provide better living conditions to the inmates. They were directed to ensure that they do not continue living in inhuman and degrading conditions and that the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is made real and meaningful for them.

However, Mrs. Shrivastava, the Superintendent of the home, filed an affidavit before the Court stating the action taken by the State Government in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. In the affidavit, Mrs Shrivastava had stated that the present petition had been filed by Dr. Baxi and Mrs. Lotika Sarkar as a last resort to compel the Government to leave the present accommodation of the home and that their sole objective was to secure the building of the Home.

Observations of the Court

Firstly, the Court unhesitatingly condemned the insinuation made by Mrs Shrivastava that Dr. Baxi and Mrs. Sarkar wanted to secure the building of the Home for themselves. It then proceeded to consider how far the directions made by it had been complied with.The Supreme Court had directed in an earlier order that all the inmates of the Home should be medically examined.

According to the report of the Incharge of the Department of Psychiatry, S N Medical College Agra, who examined the 50 inmates of the Home, found that 33 of the inmates were suffering from mild to moderate degrees of mental retardation. However, they had not been medically examined at the time of being admitted in the home.

The Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Superintendent of the Home as to whether any psychiatric treatment was provided to them and whether any steps had been taken towards their rehabilitation. Further, the Supreme Court directed the State government and also the Superintendent of the Home, to segregate the mentally retarded inmates from the normal inmates and to decide which categories of mentally retarded inmates should be transferred to a suitable Institution.

The Court also directed that the expenses for the same should be borne by the State Government. The Supreme Court observed that soon after its first order, 16 inmates , who were reported to have been in a mentally deranged condition, had been discharged by the Superintendent of the Home after obtaining orders permitting the same, from the Additional District Magistrate.

The manner in which these inmates were discharged caused the Court to observe that they might have been discharged merely to avoid an enquiry by the Court.The Court also expressed its disapproval over the fact that the inmates had been discharged without providing them with railway tickets as contemplated under section 37(4) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 and that the authorities did not bother to enquire as to where they were going or whether they had any money or how they proposed to look after themselves.

The Court also sought an explanation from the Additional District Magistrate as to how the above-mentioned inmates, who had been found to be mentally retarded to some extent, were allowed to be discharged. The court sought explanation on these issues from the State Government and the Superintendent of the Home, and thereafter the case was posted for hearing on another date.

The matter came up for hearing several times after that and various directions were given regarding the wellbeing of the inmates of the Protective Home. In the final order, the Supreme Court held that it was happy to note that the State Government had responded to the various directions and had taken steps with a view to improving the living conditions of the inmates of the Home.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India