RIGHT TO FOOD Politics of Hunger and the Privatisation of Food
Item
- Title
-
RIGHT TO FOOD
Politics of Hunger and the Privatisation of Food - extracted text
-
RIGHT TO FOOD
Politics of Hunger and the Privatisation of Food
PUCL v. UOI - Supreme Court orders
Right to Food and Work Act (Draft)
High Level Committee on Long Term Grain Policy
fBt'
J
A Human Rights Law Network Publication
Rs. 100/-
INTRODUCTION
While the Right to Food Campaign has spread throughout the country there are silent and powerful
forces at work attempting to strangle the Public Distribution System. India is a huge market foi grain
and the Multi National Corporations, World Bank, World Trade Organisation and International
Monetary Fund are all big players in dictating government policy on food security. There are many
senior government officials who are willing to toe the line.
On the other hand there are people’s movement throughout the world organising against this
globalisation. Millions have been affected. The forces of resistance to globalisation are growing.
The time has come for the Right to Food campaign to take up the larger issue of policy and the
decision making process. The report of the High level Committee on the Long term Grain Policy
shows that the government is on the brink of shifting away from the Public Distribution System.
This compilation has the original orders of the Supreme Court. The case continues.
I am grateful to Sanjay Dhadwal for preparing the compilation and Vijay Nagaraj from Amnesty
International India for allowing the use of the cover page photograph.
COLIN GONSALVES
Cover photograph: A child searchingfor food at Chowpatti Beach, Bombay, India is approached by a
policeman wielding a lathi. From Hidden scandal, secret shame, Amnesty International © Dario
Mitidieri.
CONTENTS
1-2
1.
The Politics of Hunger and the privatisation of food.
2.
Supreme Court orders passed in People’s Union tor Civil
Liberties Vs. Union of India & Ors.
3-78
3.
Sabotaging PDS: The High Level Committee on Long
Term Grain Policy.
79-82
4.
The Draft Right to Food and Work Act
83-88
COMPILED BY
Human Rights Law Network
65, Masjid Road, Jangpura,
New Delhi-110 014.
Ph: 91-11-24316922,24319856
E-mail: hrlndelThvsnl.net
1
THE POLITICS OF HUNGER AND THE
PRIVATISATION OF FOOD
COLIN GONSALVES
1.
When we at the RTF began the right to food petition - PUCL vs. UOI - over a year
ago we knew very little of the complex issue of food security. We did not expect to get
very far with the petition. I remember cautioning Kavita not to tell anyone about the case
because the chances were high of the Supreme Court rejecting the petition. I had at the
back of my mind the 1989 experience of Kishan Pattnaik whose petition was disposed off
on the empty assurance of the State of Orissa that steps would be taken to prevent
starvation deaths. Of course, nothing was done. So ten years later, when the NHRC began
once again to look into starvation deaths in Orissa and the matter languished there, it
seemed as if history was repeating itself.
2.
What we didn’t - factor into our calculation was Justice B.N. Kirpal who
unexpectedly took up the case with gusto. He would brush aside the usual bureaucratic
hurdles, overrule petty objections and come straight to the point. The Court’s four initial
orders lifted our morale and spurred a national campaign on the right to food that was
subterranean and waiting for something to set off a chain reaction. It must be recognized
and stated that the struggle on the right to food predates our case by many years and is
very extensive. Groups all over the country have worked on food security in a variety of
ways.
The pleadings and the orders in the case have been published in the third issue of
the human rights law magazine - ‘Combat Law’ - and I don’t propose to dwell on that
now. I want to move forward to the lessons we have learnt over the last year of the case.
3.
4.
Food is a volatile issue. It transcends hunger and involves not only large
corporations but nations and - the bottom line - profits. Malnutrition and starvation deaths
are only playthings. In this quagmire are all kinds of players; from the NGOs and struggle
organizations with their immediate concerns on the one hand, and the big and silent players
manipulating things behind the scene. The confusing thing is that all the players harp on
hunger. The starting point of both the peoples and the MNC agenda is malnutrition. The
jargon of poverty is so well used by all, how do you find out who your enemy is?
5.
The difficulties faced by the peoples organization is that they are fragmented,
fighting against insurmountable odds and financially impoverished. While they struggle
for reform at the local level, the big picture is often difficult to see. On the other extreme
of the spectrum are powerful lobbies, contemptuous of the poor and sensing in hunger the
opportunity to do business. These lobbies operate silently but they control government.
6.
Not only we in the support group of the campaign but groups everywhere have
asked government why it is, when there is so much surplus grain, that grain is not released
free for the starving sections or for food-for-work. No answer. Perhaps we were barking
up the wrong tree for globalisation and structural adjustments demands that the food
subsidy be cut. Extending the subsidy is out of the question. These are the larger forces the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF - with their numerous servile collaborators in
government who decide not only the answer but what questions can be asked.
2
7.
It is alright to speak of malnutrition - that’s stating the obvious. It is alright to
speak ol ‘vulnerable sections’ because that, in fact, strengthens their argument that
subsidized food should go only to the poorest of the poor; as if hunger is a localized
phenomenon. Such a preoccupation with ‘vulnerable sections’ operates as some kind of
super-targetting and works in favour of a much smaller commitment of grain and money.
It is alright to speak of corruption in the public distribution system, because that fact is
twisted to support the argument that PDS should be discontinued. If it is doing so poorly
why not let it die a natural death? It’s alright to talk of new schemes. People in
government know that these schemes will never be implemented and are content to have
others waste precious time elaborately designing fanciful new schemes.
8.
The power play and deception is impressive. A massive public distribution system
through which 40 million tones of grain flow every year is slowly strangled while the
government dangles a bait of 2 million tones for destitutes and vulnerable sections. We, in
the struggle for food security, welcome any improvement of any scheme, but we are not
content.
The commitment to globalisation, the enslavement to the MNCs and the resistance
to welfare is so entrenched, even Supreme Court orders cannot change that. Despite the
orders of the Court we found on reviewing the situation after one year that the off-take of
foodgiain loi welfaie schemes went up by a paltry 5 mt. During the same period exports
at slightly above the BPL rates (to avoid any criticism from Parliament) was over 5 mt.
Not a single state had fully implemented the mid-day meals order despite the deadline
passing. Ration shops remained closed despite specific orders and large scale diversion of
grain continued unabated. Government persisted with the slow strangulation of the PDS
despite the legal proceedings. It was like Jack - the - Ripper being distracted by a fly.
10.
Then came the report of the “High Level Committee on Long Term Grain Policy”.
It marks an alarming shift at the highest level of government, away from the Public
Distribution System and towards the privatization of food. This Report should be
distributed and discussed and the RTF campaign should gear up to oppose the changes
contemplated before it is too late. My critique of the Report titled ‘Sabotaging PDS: The
High Level Committee Goes Dangerously Astray’ is also attached with this mail.
11.
The time has come now for the RTF to put in place the larger picture through
collective discussion, to think globally while acting locally. To study the “reforms'’ done
in other countries and its effect on the poor and thereby understand that the struggle in
India has many paiallels. The RTF needs to link up with other groups in other countries
fighting foi food security. All this must be done in a transparent manner by involving all
those in the campaign.
***
3
ITEM Ho,8
Court Ho, 1
SECTION PIL
SUPREME - COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(Civil) No.l96/2001(
INDIA
■502691
For Preliminary Hearing )
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
Petitioner (s
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Respondent (s,
•■itn Appint's). for interim Relief
Cate • 09/05/2001 This
Petition
)
was
called on for hearing today.
- JRAH :
Certified to be true eopy
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMA PAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH KUMAR
For Petitioner (E)
AssYstaat Registrwujdi.)
.....
Supremo Court of India
Mr. cColin
'’ Gonsalves.
Adv.
Mr. Jawahar Raia
Haja, Adv.
Ms. ?Aparna Bhatz Adv.
For Respondent (s)
s*
t*
UPON hearing counsel t’
the Court made the following
order
Issue
notice returnable on 23rd July, 2001.
service in addition is Permitted.
Kalyani,
(S.L.XGOYAL)
COURT MASTER
Dasti
i
4
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
Court No. 3
f'TEM No. 44
I N 0 I A’5161^3
COURT
GF
S U P F E M ERECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Peti tion(Civil' N >.196/2001
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CT VI1
Petitioner (s
liberties
VERSUS
Respondent (s
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
( With Appln(s). for inter iin Rel ief )
Date
: 23/07/2001 Th’.s
p.3 t i 11 on
was
called on for hearing today.
i
CORAM :
HON'RLE MR, JI. STICE B.N. KIRPAL
Certified to be tme copy
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
<Judl )
Assistant
For Petitioner (s)
For Respondent (s)
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Adv
Mr . Jawahar Raja, Adv.
|!a. Aparna Bhat, Adv.
-----
1
guptame CoartotteO*
Hr . Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General
t Is. Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Hr . B V Bal ram Das, Adv.
II’-. R.adha Shyam Jena,
Adv.
Di. A M Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
S V Di'-shpande, Adv .
'ir.
Naresh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
•is. Indira Sawhney, Adv.
M/S I.M. Nanavati Associates, Advs.(NP)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Counsit 1
for
the
file
a
A copy of the same
be
petitioner is permitted to
fresh
application for interim relief.
g i ven
to the crunsel for the Union of India as well as to the
counsel for the states and for the Food Corporation of India.
5
not
Attorney General states that this should
matter of
be regarded as an adversarial litigation and it is a
Learned
concern for all.
is to see
In our opinion, what is of utmost importance
infirm, disabled, destitute
that food is provided to the aged.
of starvation, pregnant
women, destitute men who are in danger
and destitute children, especial 1y in
and lactating women
of their family do not have
cases where they or members
In case of famine,
sufficient funds to provide -food for them.
shortage of food, hut here the situation is that
there may be
is
of food
Plenty
amongst plenty there is scare. ■ ty .
amongst the very poor
avai1 able, but distribution of ’he same
non-ex i stent leading t<
and the destitute i s scarce and
ma 1-nourishment, starvation and -,thar related problems.
Reply
States
affidavits
be
filed within two weeks
by
th
well as the Food Corporation
and the Union of India as
of India.
In
the
meantime,
W€- a re
sure that
the
responsible
By way
will act for the benefit of their people.
direct the States to see that all the
of an interim order , we
start f unctionit.^
if closed, are re-opened and
PDS shops,
regular supplies made.
within one week from today and
petitioner to implead oth
Leave i s granted to the
On such
this petition.
States also as parties to
application being filed today. notice to issue to them.
Governments
List
the
matter
for further consideration. Oh
20th
August, 2001.
/DP. V/Al I A 1
(S.ll. GOYAL)
Court Master
6
ITEM No,44
Court Ho, 3
SECTION PTi
A/N MATTER
supreme
rc o- U R T
OF
record
- of
■ PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petltiontcivi])
PEOPLE'S UNION
INDIA
-520508
Mo,i9e/2001
FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
, ’ 0/sllON OF INDIA
l
4 0R8,
»
(With aplication
report)
for Interjjn rel 1 ef sod Interim relief
Respondent (s)
and office
.rpate ; 20/08/2001 This
Petition was •called on for
r ’•
hearing today.
I
ORAM
*%
G^fled^betrw.^HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 8.hl.
kirpal
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. c„„,
SANTOSH HEGDE
HON’BLE MR, JUSTICE SRIjfsh
"Z.l KUMAR
-
•».
For Petitioner (s)
3upw»^Co,<rt^^;
Mr, Colin Gonaalve, Adv.
Or. Yug Chaudhery,
. Jawahar Raja,
Ml , P Rnrnesh Kumar Hr
and Ms. Aparna
ohatj Advs.
I
For Respondent (s)
f
Me,
,vate of Orissa
State of Rajasthan
3tate of Himachal
Pradesh
State of Uttranchal
State of Assam
^-r.!
K: s;2nX;r“j";
Indra Sawhney, Adv,
Mr. Radha •Shyani
;Jenat Adv.
Ur. A M Sinphvi
Singhvl, or
Sr. Adv.
^Sandi^ya GoewamlI and Mr.
Mr,
I.
w P T Tomar,
Maresh K Sharma, Adv.
Hs, Rachana Sr 1vastava,
Adv.
•I
Me, Krishna Sarma, Adv.
Ms, ;Asha
•...
.
g Nair
and Mr.
K Siddharthan.
J haw Group, vAdve.
far Corporate
State of U.p.
Mr. / *
i; Agrawa), AdVi
Hr. K• I■ •-^njani
,x‘Ojan i, Adv.
2/’
Advi?.
. -4
I
State of Karnataka
Mr, Sanjay r Hegde, Adv.
Mr, Bat.yh Mitra, Adv.
State of Sikkim
Mr, A Miir i.irputham. Adv.
He, Arun.i Mathur and Hr. rAnur/vj fi- Mathur,
Advs. for H/s, Arputham, Aruna & Co.jAdvs.
UT of Pondicherry
Mr, V G Pragasam, Adv.
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr, Anil Shrivastav, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr, Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
j fstate of Nagaland
Mr, S K Shand 11 ya, Adv.
Ms, v n Khanna,’Adv.
5tate of Goa
Ms, A Subhashini, Adv,
otate of Punjab
Ms. Jay^iiree Anand, Add 1.Adv.Genl., pp.
Mr, G $ i vaba 1 ainurugan, Mr. Rajeev Sharma
and Mr. f: s Suri, Advs.
State of Maharashtra ; Mr, S 7 f’oshpande, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K II Moo in Singh, Adv.
State of Gujarat
Mr. P Chidambcir
,
—ram, Sr. Adv.
Ma, Henvintika
I
Wahi, Adv.
State of M,p.
Mr. Satish.K Agnlhotri, Adv.
A
Hr, Anil k Pandey and Hr.. Rohit Kumar
Singh, Adv*.
Mr, K C Kaushik, Adv,
Mr. 0 S Mahra, Adv.
M/a
j.m.
Manavatf Associates, Advs.
I
UPON hear 1 ng counsel the Court made
the following
ORDER
The
anxiety of th© Court
is to see that the poor
the destitute *nd the weaker sections of the
society
do
not suffer from
hunger and starvation.
The
prevention
of
the same i s
one
of
the
prime
responsibilities of the Government whether Central or
the State. Hou this is
to bo ensured would be a matter
of policy which is
host left to the Government.
All
&
/N
....3/-
I
I
I
J
I .
that the Court h
to
I
I
I
i
/
J/
I
8
satisfied and which it
may have
ensure is that the
Woodgrains which are
overflowing
in the storage
''ftCftptaclss, especially of FCT
©odowns,
and which are
in abundance, should not
be wasted by
dumping into the
sea or eaten by the rats.
without any implementation ar6 uf no (Jse>Mere schemes
are of no
What is
important is that the food must reach the
hungry.
The Attorney General
states that the case may be
adjourned by a short
date for considering what
interim
directions can
or should be issued
by this Court.
A
brief affidavit in
this behalf may be filed by
the Union
of India.
Other states
who have not filed
aftidavi ts
should also file tfie
within 10 days.
To come up o/-, 3’rcj
September, 2001.
(D.P. WALIA)
Court Master
.
I.
(S.L. GOYAL)
Court Master
I
c
l
I.
I
i
J
No. 34
Court No. ?
SUPREME
COURT
SECTION PTl
A/N MATTER
of
RFCORO OF PROCEEDINGS
i
Writ PetitionCCivil ) No.196/2001
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CTVTI
I. TRFRTTFS
VERSUS
;;
Assist•. •; n
, ,,
.. I
\...
Suprcnv’ cUUr.
L^WN OF INDIA & ORS.
(Witfr applns.fs)
for interim
^>te : O3/C)9/2qoi This
■524971
I N D T A
pHt. i f. | onnr
j'rtdiffl
espondent (s
re 1ief ^nd office
Pa t. i t i on
was
report)
1 1 ed on for hearing today.
HON’RLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.
HON’RLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KIRPAL
SHAN
Ftffr Petitioner (s)
For rRespondent (s)
U 0 I
I- 2 J
'
’te of
Mr .
Dr.
Mr.
Ms,
Colin Gonsa.1 ve , Adv.
Vug Ohaudhary, Mr. Jawahar Raja,
P Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Aparna Bhat’and
Usha Pulu, Advs.
Mr.
Ms .
Mr.
Mr,
Mr.
MelnaksM^rora' AttOrne>/ Gene^l
Adv.
Manish Singhvi Adv.
K C Kaus;hik, Adv
’ .
R V Ra i aram Das, Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
State of Orissa
Rajasthan
Mr, Radha Shyam Jena,
Adv.
r
Advs,
State of Himachal
Pradesh
State of Uttranchal
State of Assam
State of u.p.
(.<
Singhvi , r.Sr'. Adv.
••• i and Mr. M P T T omar,
Mr. Naresh K Sharma,
Adv.
Ns, Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
Ms . Krishna Sanna, Adv.
Ms, Asha G Nair and Mr.’
V K Siddharthan, Advs.
for Corporate
•
--o Law Group, Advs.
Mr, Ajay k Agrawal, Adv.
Ms. Alka Agcawal, Adv
Mr. Ashok K Srivastava,
Adv.
....?/-
1C
I
i
I
i
ate of Karnataka
rate of Sikkim
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
Mariarputham. Adv.
Mathtir
Mr. A Aruna
Mathur and Mr. Anurag 0 M^r’
Ms.
(OI- m/s, ai rnithmn, Aruna A Co.,Advs.
Advs.
•iT of Pondicherry
Mr. v G Pragasam, Adv.
state of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
State of Nagaland
State of Goa
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms. V D Khanna r Adv. *•
Ms. A Subhashini, Adv
State of Punjab
’ .,, Pb.
.Genl
Ms . Jayshree Anand, Addl.Adv
Rajeev Sharma
Mr.
G
Sivabalamurugan,
Mr
.
Mr.
and Mr. R S Suri, Advs.
State of Maharashtra
Mr. S S Shinde, Adv.
Mr. S V Deshpande, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
State of Gujarat
Mr. P Chidambaram, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
State of M.P.
Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Adv.
Mr. Anil K Pandey and Mr. Roh it Kumar
Singh, Advs.
State of Tripura
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv.
UT of Chandigarh
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms.
Advs.
State of West Bengal
Mr. Dilip Sinha, Adv.
Ms. J R Das, Adv. for Sinha & Das, Advs.
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
State of Tamil Nadu
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar and Dadra &
Nager Haveli
Aishawriya Rao,
Mr. P N Ramalingam, Adv.
Mr. V Balaji, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Avatar Singh Rawal, Adv.
Mr. OS Mahra, Adv.
o /_
11
the following
UPON hearing counsel the Court made
ORDER
JA No, .8Z20Q1
/
well as. in
Issue notice to the Union of India as
to the States of Andhra Pradesh,
the first i nstance,
Karnataka,
Pradesh,
Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, H i machal
Orissa, Rajasthan and
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,
counsel.
Notice to serve throd’gh the standing
Kerala.
a
file
petitioner to
i s given to the
Liberty
fresh suggestions after
supplementary affidavit giving
affidavit of these states
taking into consideration the
India and the statutory order
as wel 1 as the Union of
Affidavit be filed within a
dated 31 st August, 2001.
well as to the
Response to the application as
week.
filed within a week thereafter.
additional affidavit be
To come up on 17th September, 2001 .
Learned
Attorney
General brings to
our
noti c
as ye"
States and Union Territories have not
line fami 1ies under th^
identi fied the below poverty
direct these 16 States and
Antyodhya Anna Yojana. We
Pradesh, Assam.
Union Terri tori es, namely, Arunachal
Sikkim,
Bihar, De 1h i , Goa, Manipur, Nagaland, Orissa,
Bengal,
West
Uttaranchal.,
Tripura,
Nadu,
T ami 1
Pondicherry to comply wi t>.
Chandigarh, Lakshadweep and
Government’s directions within two weekthe Central
that
16
from today and report compliance.
12
Nn.35
Ci mu t No.
SU P R
9
SRCTION PI|
A/N MATTER
M F
c <) u R T
OF
COURT
RECORD OF PROCFFDING.9
f
T N D I A
529129
Writ PetitionfCivi 1)
No,196/pooi
PFOPI F’s
union
POP Civil.
I TRPRTIPS
Petitioner (s)
VFR,911.9
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(With applns.(s) for interim relief
and office
Date :
17/09/2001 This
Peti tion
was
i
t
Respondent (s)
report)
c.a I led on for hearing today
j Certified to be true copy
CORAM :
HON’R|.F hr.
HON’RIF MR.
For Peti tioner (s)
1
----- -
'USTTCF R.N. klRPAI
JU.9TTCF A.9HOK RHAN
Aacwtem Ssoimrar Wedl.f
..........
aupKwawut^iB^a
[
Mr . Colin Gonsalvez.
,
r»r, •'ua Chaudhary , Mr Adv
. • I awa 11 ar Raja,
Mr . P Ramesh Kumar f
Ms . Anarna Rhat and
Ms. Ustia Pulu, Advs.
For Respondent ( s )
uni
Mr. Goli j Sorahjse.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Attorney General
Mr. R V Rai aram Das’ Adv.
Adv .
F C I
Ms.
-
State of Orissa
v
State of Rajasthan
State of Himachal
Pradfish
State of Uttrancha1
State of Assam
State of U.P.
t.
State of Karnataka
Sta r.M •'>f Sikkim
I ndra Sawhney,
Adv.
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv.
Dr. A M Singhvi, Sr.
Adv .
Ms. Sandnya Goswami
and
Mr.
Advs.
Mr. Naresh K Sharma.
Ms.
M P .9 Tomar,
Adv.
Rachana Srivastava,
Adv .
Ms. Asha G Nair,
Adv.
Ms. Krishna Sarma
'
Advs.• for Corporatennd Mr. v k rSidharthan,
taw Group, Advs.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr .
Ajay K Agrawa1, Adv,
Alka Agrawal, Adv
Ashok k Srivastava,
Adv.
Sanjay R Hegde. Adv .
•''atya Mitra, Adv .
Mr .
Mari arputham. Adv.
Ms .
Aruna Mathur
' ’ ! Mr.
Anu/
A d v s . for
Ar pui l,am, A;una de o Mahhur,
x Co..Advs .
1
1°
/
tinv r.,
ofi Pondicherry
Mr.
V G Pragafiam,
St.i f e ofi Arunacha 1
Pradesh
Mr ,
Anil Shr1vastav, Adv .
State of Meghalaya
Mr.
Ranjan Mukherjee,
State nf Nagaland
Mr .
Ms ,
s k Shandilya, Adv.
V D Khanna, Adv.
Stat.a of Goa
Ms .
A Suhhashini.
Star.e of Punjab
Ms . •Myshree Anand.
Add 1.Adv Genl, . pp
‘ •
Mr. G •^ivabalamurugan,
Mr. Rajecv Sharma
and Mr.• R
S S Si
ir > . Advs
Suri
St.H i .a n f Maharashtra
Mr .
Mr.
T
Stat a of(Mani pur
Mr.
Ashwani K Dinar, Sr. Adv.
Mr . Pral- asp $hr j vast.ava,
State of Kerala
UT of Ghanoi garh
b.-ate of West Bengal
i
Nadu
NCT Dr 1hi
UTs of Andaman &
N i coba r, Gadra A Nagar
Haveli, Daman 4 Diu
and I. ak«hadweeep
I
State .-.f Hany ana
Stat r
Adv.
Mr. Satish K Agnihotri,
Adv.
Mr. Anil K Pandev -■»ni Mr
Roh i r
S if'gh. Advs.
State of Tripura
State ,'-,f Tarni 1
S S SliindG, Adv.
S V Deshpande. Adv.
Mr. P Ch i damharam, Sr. Adv.
Ma . Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms . Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
Star.a of M.P.
I
Adv.
Adv.
Mr I- H Moi-. In Singh.
Starp of Gujarat
Slat
*bf ^Chha r.t
Adv.
f zndhra Pradesh
Mr.
Hop;,) Singh,
r i ‘in a f
Adv .
Adv.
Mr . ^mesh Babu M Rt
Adv.
Ms, Kamini Jai swa 1
. .
Adv
Ms.
Shoniila Bakshi and
. I Ms .
Advs.
Mr .
T*ra Chandra Sharma,
Mr.
Mr
P N Rama 1 ingam.
Gal ij i : -uh/.
Aishwarya Rao,
Adv .
Mr. Ashok Bhan,
Adv.
Mr. k C K a u s h i k
and Mr. 0 S Mal“«ra.
Mr. Ashok Shan, Ad v.
Mr. K C Kauchik. a d*'
Mr. 0 S Mahra, Adv.
Mr . C ?. -■f‘hr I . Adv
Mr. Mahahi/ Singh. Adv.
Mr.
Mr .
Mr . p
T V •Sar.nam, Adv.
Rao.
Ad.
Adv .
A. |v.q ,
14
UPON hearing counsel
rwf e i ■eno a
Wi th
nad
Gene r <il »
dated
and
Union
the
identified the
not
States
16
to
accord ing
who.
Territories
tO this Court’s di root ion
requiring
200 I
September,
3rd
the Court made the following
0 R i) F P
1 i no
poverty
he 1 ow
under the Antyodaya Anna Tojana,
fami1ies
Attorney
I earned
identify,
to
such exercise in the right
are* not. rntir-f ied that Any
States
the
Some of
peAn undertaken.
Fi a s
earnestness
wg
of
seriousness
the matter,
one further opportunity
js
Terr I tories
to
16 States and Union
these
to
granted
I
comply
with the Of ri tr a i Gove r i iment s di rer.tions
within
three
v.'opxs ar id
G/ ivurnnihnt
about
Antyodaya
inform th'"'
Cent i’•i’*
Ar. 'a
Whifh
they
ths
commoni cat1 on
sa i d
identified.
have
by
the
under
iine fami 1ie«
Iipi'icw finvert.y
of
Copies
i.o
of
number
the
fI
Considering the
that Lne exercise is underway.
ment ion
said
the
16
States/Union Territories should also be forwarced to the
}
7
Attorney
General who wi11
inform the Court, on the
next
ppfjp made or not.
date of hearing whether compliance has
Cent ral Gover r.inent ar1-*' me.r.f irr-t'r.’
of
schemes
schemes are
been
replaced by a Sampurna
Scheme,
Gramin
I
Mid-day
Meal
I?
Scheme,
Nat l ona I
Renefit
Materr 4 ty
women.
Nat iona 1
Old Ac® Pensi on
onnont
which
Employment Assurance Scheme
may
have
wh i cl'i
iimplemented by the State Governments.
are required to
These
certain
6A-6A,
Nn .
T .A,
Tn
Tntngrated
Ch lid
Yojana,
Cevelopment
f or
BPL
Scheme
for
Scheme
15
;• i
Antynday^
Anna
Yo.iana,
Mat ional
^i/i) i 1 y Rwripf i t
chAma
and
i
F
Puhi ir. nifstr I but ion He hama fn|BPI. & API
fami1ies.
ThA Chief •Sacr-Ptai aa of
a i I ^hA S-.tai/.AS and the
Un i on
Territoriee are hereby directed
tn report tn r.he Cabinet.
Secretary,
with copy tn Hie learned Attoi
ney General,
within ..three Wppt ST
f rruii
t ride y
w i th regard to the
imnlamentation of •3 1 1 or
anv of 1heee Schemes
with or
w I thoiit any mod 1f|oa 11 on
arid
i f al 1 or
any of the
Schemes have not been
’implemented then the
reasons for
the same.
7 tlA
/
i
facts
C.r n I | s. *:
< h'/VA If
|JI
'■ I a i I onllate
al 1
the
and therpaftei
take ner:eesary action
in order to
ensure the imp Umerd at ion
oi the said Schemes,
A Status
Report with regard th.ereto
may he filpo jn Court withi n
five weeks,
Reforo 9 Iv i ng
the Status Report,
the
Centra 1
Cover nrnnri t will
-I I sa. i a sop r ta i n u* i th regard
to
the actuaI imn I Pin a nr at ion
r> i t r» e >r i ( h i a
•’ ■ I ■ ) I A f I
Tn
rp-.-n. !• i jne.
■ i r er, i.
: i
>■
i.lie
State
t'.n fnrthwi th 1 ift
the entire a 1 1 otment. of
foodgrains ff nff, ’he Central
Government. under the various
Schemes and di sburse
the same in accordance
with
the
Cover nmen t.q
Schemes.
The Po«',»d
for V/ort
Prooramme i n the
scarcity areas
1 so he implemented by the variQUe
•shoijld
Sta * ep
to the
extent possible.
To come i.p ori r,|-.h Nnvrtniber.
F
2001 .
/
I
OTp. WAI Tai'*
i
1
V
(GJ .
/ /'
I
GOYA I )
I
\
■
16
!
-r?EM No.31 & 63
Court No, 2
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
SUPREME
C OORT
COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(CiviX) No.196/2001
INDIA
■54K63
Certltfed to be tnfi cnssy
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
■kJ* kt?
• A.iSiSlani Rnoisrr,> JLuidi.)
VERSUS
Petitioner (a)
i
Supreme Coun ot India
UNION OF INDIA & ORS,
Respondent (s)
(With applns.(s) for interim relief and office report)
WITH
W.P.(C) 498/2001
[Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party Vs, Union of India & Ors.]
Date : 05/11/2001 This
Petition
wa's
called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
For Petitioner (s)
For Respondent (s)
U 0 I
F C I
State ot Orissa
Mr. Colin Gonsalvez, Adv,
Er'
Chaudhary, Mr. Jawahar Raja,
Mr. P Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Aparna Bhat and
Ms . Usha Pulu, Advs.
Mr. Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General
Ms . Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Mr. B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Ms . Indra Sawhney, Adv.
M/s Radha Shyam Jena & S. Ray, Advs.
State of Rajasthan
Ms. Sandhya Goswami and Mr. MPS Tomar,
Advs.
State of Himachal
Pradesh
Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Adv.
.State of Uttranchal
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
State of Assam
Ms . Asha G Nair, Adv.
Ms . Krishna Sarma and Mr. V K Sidhart.han,
Advs . for Corporate Law Group, Advs.
State of U.P.
Mr. Ajay K Agrawal, Adv.
Ms . Alka Agrawal, Adv,
Mr. Ashok K Srivastava, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr. San jay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
State of Sikkim
Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv.
Ms . Aruna Mathur and Mr.
Anuraq D Mathur.
17-' y
■
A-
Govt. of Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv.
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms . V D Khanna, Adv.
State of Goa
Ms. A Subhashini, Adv,
State of Punjab
Ms. Jayshree Anand Addl .Adv. Genl. , Pb
Mr. G !Sivabalamurugan
, I*
“ '
and Mr.• RS Suri, Advs. Mr. Rajeev Sharma
State of Maharashtra
Mr. S s Shinde, Adv.
Mr. S V Deshpande, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
Mr. P Chidambaram, Sr. Adv
Ms . Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
State of Gujarat
State of M.P.
!.
'A
1
1
Mr. Vivek Tankha, Adv. Genl.
Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.
Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Adv.
Mr.
State of Chhattisgarh
State of Tripura
Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv.
Mr. K.R, Sasi Prabhu, Adv.
Mr. John Mathew, Adv.
UT of Chandigarh
Ms . Kamini ww*a.u>»Tul,
Jaiswal AdV.
r•
Ms. Shomila
Bakshi and Ms.
Advs.
State of West Bengal
State of Tamil Nadu
NCT Delhi
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
Haveli, Daman & Diu
and Lakshadweeep
State of Haryana
Aishwarya Rao,
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,
& Mr. J.R.. Das, Advs.
Mr. P N Ramalingam, Adv.
Mr. V Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Bhan, Ms.
Mr. K C Kaushik and Sunita Sharma,
Mr. D S Mahra, Advs.
Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv.
Mr. K C Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. D S Mahra, Adv.
Mr. J. P. Dhanda, Adv.
i.
18
State of Andhra Pradesh
Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
State of Mizoram
Ms . Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms . Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
State of Jharkhand
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.
Petr, in WP 498/2001
Mr. Shim Singh, Adv.
Mr. B.S. Billowria, Adv.
Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv.
State of Jammu & Kashmsir Mr. M.A. Goin, Adv. Genl.
Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Issue notice in W.P,(C) 498/2001.
Advocate
Mr.
M.A.
General for the State of Jammu & Kashmir
Goin,
accepts
notice.
The matters are adjourned to 21st November, 2001.
Kalyani.
GOYAL)
COURT MASTER
(3^^
J
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
Cour t No. 2
ITEM No. 1
SUPREME
COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(Civil ) No,196/2001
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
VERSUS
• eartifted to
1
,\
assist-1
Scprt
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
INDIA
545538*
imw copy
Put|itionor (s)
,K f >
\v\7
4
J •>
ri oAlncik* Respondent (s)
(With applns.(s) for interim relief and office report)
WITH
•« 7 V / 4. V V A
.
W.P.(C) 498/2001
Kashmir
National Panthers Party Vs. Union of India & ors.j
(Jamiy-.'. L& -----------Dat^ -< 21/11/2001 This Petition was called on for hearing today..
i ■
:0RAl'l :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
For Petitioner (s)
i Petrs in WP 498/01
For Respondent (s)
7 0 I
' r i
Staie of Orissa
State of Rajasthan
Mr.
Dr.
Ms.
Ms.
Colin Gonsalvez, Adv.
Yug Chaudhary, Adv.
Tashi D. Bhutia, Adv.
Aparna Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Bhim Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mansoor Ali, Adv.
Mr. Dinehs Kumar Garg, Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Mr. B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Ms . Indra Sawhney, Adv.
M/s Radha Shyam Jena & S. Rayz Advs.
Ms . Sandhya Goswami and Mr. MPS Tomar,
Advs.
State of Himachal
Pradesh
Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Adv.
State of Uttranchal
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
State of Assam
Ms. Asha G Nair, Adv.
Ms . Krishna Sarma and Mr. V K Sidharthan,
Advs. for Corporate Law Group, Advs.
State of U.P.
Mr. Ajay K Agrawal, Adv.
Ms . Alka Agrawal, Adv.
Mr . Ashok K Srivastava, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
22
Court. No.
ITEM No.6
SUPREME
SECTION Pit
A/N MATTER
2
INDIA
OF
COURT
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CTVTI ) NO.
548fcC8
196 OF ?001
PhUI.iooHr (a)
I TRFRTTFS
PFOPIF’S UNION FOR CTVTI
VERSUS
Respondent (s)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(With appln. for interim rel lef and office report)
Date :
.
28/11/2001
This
Petition
was
called on for hearing today.
c.ORAM :
HON’Bl. E MR. JUSTICE B.N, KIRPAI.
Certtflod to be true copy
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. RAIAKRTSHNAt
For Petitioner (s)
MS. Aparna Bhat.Adv.
Mr. Vug Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Tashi D. Bhutia, Adv.
Assistani
...... Sr.U
Supreme Court oi indie
For Respondent (s)
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Soli J. Sorabjee, A.G.
Manish Singhvi, Adv.
R V B Das, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R. Hwgde, Adv.
Mr. Sa I.ya M 11.r a , Adv .
State of A.P.
Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv .
State of Goa
Ms. A Subhash ini, Adv.
State of U.P.
Mr.
Mr.
State of Bihar
Mr. Kumar Rajesh .Singh,
Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ashok Srivastava, Adv.
Adv.
Mr. 8 R Singh, Adv.
State of Haryana
Mr. J P Dhanda, Adv.
State of Assam
Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv.
Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.
Mr. V K Sidharthan, Adv.
for M/s.
State of Gujarat
A Mi zoram
Corfiorate law Group.
Ms . H Wahi, Adv,
Ms . Sumi La Haz a r i k a, Adv .
. . .2/-
2>
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr . Ard 1 Shrivastav, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Rahu M.R., Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Adv.
Mr. V D Khanna, Adv.
State of Punjab
Ms. • layshree Anand, AAG
Mi .
G S i val>a I amurugan , Adv.
Mr . F< S Suri, Adv.
State of Sikkim
Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Mat.hur, Adv.
Mr. Anurag D, Mathur, Adv.
Govt, of Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv.
State of Chhattisgarh Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. J R Das, Adv.
M/s. Sinha & Das, Advs.
Mr. K C Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. D S Mehra, Adv,
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Tri veni Potekker, Adv.
Mr. K H Nob in Singh, Adv.
i
Mr. P N Rarnalingam, Adv,
Mr. V Balaji, Adv:
Mr. Jana Kalyan DaSjAdv.
Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney,Adv.
Ms. Sandhya Goswarni, Adv.
Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.
Mr. S.V. Deshpande,Adv.
Mr. Mahabir Singh,Adv.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal.Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.
24
Mr, B.S. Banthia,Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur.Adv.
Mr. Ani« Suhrawardy, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court niadw tha fol'lowing
0 R 0 F R
A number of
to
. /
di rent ions are issued with regard
implnniftnnation of various Schemas in terms of
signed order.
I 1st
the
ma h her for further orders
February, 2002.
(S.l. . Goyal )
Court Master
(Kanchan
AR-outn-PS
Signed order is placed'.on the file.
lr
*
the
on
11th
2b
/
549893
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRTT PETITION (C) NO,
196 OF 2001
People’s Union for Civil Libert ies . . . . Peti rio-i^r
VS.
/
Union of India & Ors,
. . ResO'“nd<^nt..c
Certlftec x be true copy
Asslstani
........ 3-1 x
Supreme Court of India
O R 0 E »R ’
After hearing learned counsel for the parr.i es .
we
i ssue,
an
as
interim
measure,
tne
f o 1 Iowin g
di rections<
1 •
TARGETED PUBI.JC DISTRIBUTION SCHEME
there
(TPDSi
(i)
It is the case of the Union of India that
has
been
full compliance with regard
allotment
of
foodgrain
However,
if
any
of
the
in
relation
States
to
gives
to
the
a
the
TPDS.
specific
instance of non-compliance, the Union of India will do
the needful within the framework of the Scheme.
(ii)
i
The States are directed to complete
the
of BPl fami 1ies, issuing of cards
and
i denti fi cation
commencement
of
distribution of 25 kgs.
grai n
family per month latest by Jst January, 2002.
per
*!■
I
26
I
I
(ill)
appl i cati or.
and
f o r rns
received
effective
I h j Govt..
Thri
wi 11 ensure that
TPDS
are freely avallable and are
given
free
of
me r. nan 1 em
"ha rge
and
there
in place to ensure
is
an
speedy
and
efffini vs r*~re=sal of
9rievancss,
2. ANTYODAfA ANNA
( i )
It is the case of the Union of India
that
there has . oeen ful 1
compliance, with regard to the
allotment of foodgrai n in relation to
Antyodaya Anna
Yojana.
However,
if
any of the States gives
a
specific instance of non-compli ance, the
Union of
India wi 1 1 do the needful within
the framework of the
Scheme.
(i i)
We
Territories
to
z benefici aries,
■
d irect
the
comp 1ete
issui ng
States
and
the
Union
identi fication
of
of cards and distribution
of
• grain under this Scheme latest by 1st January,
2002.
(iii )
It
appears
that
some
Antyodaya
benef i ci ari es may be unable to lift
grain because of
penury.
In sucn cases, the Centre, the States and the
Union Territories
/ 7,
AJ
are requested to consider giving the
quota free after satisfying itself in
this behalf.
■
:
...3/-
/ -.1
■ 'ih ■
I
*
27
I
MID DAY MEAL SCHEME (MOMS)
(i)
I
It is the case of the Union of India that
there has been full compliance with
regard to the Mid
Day Meal Scheme (MDMS), However, if
any of the States
gives a specific instance of non-compliance, the Union
of
India will do the needful within the framework •
of
the Scheme,
(ii)
We
direct the State Governments/
Terri tori es
to
implement the Mid-Day Meal Scheme
provi di ng
every
child
r.
Government
mi d
and
assisted
in
every
Union
Government
Primary Schools with a
day
meal with a minimum content of 300
8-12
grams of protein each day of school
by
and
prepared
calories •
•for
a
minimum
of 200 days.
Those Governments providing dry
rations
instead
cooked meals must
months
of
within
start providing cooked meals in all Govt.
Govt.
three
and
aided Primary Schools in all half the Districts
of the State ( in order of
poverty ) and must within a
further period of three months
extend the provision_of
cooked meals to the remaining parts of the
State.
...4/-
28
4
(iii) We direct the Union of Tnnia and the FCI
average quality grain for
ensure provision-of fair
The States/ Union Territories ano
the Scheme on time.
directed to do joint inspection of food
the FCI are
found, on joi nt
If the food grai n
grains.
it
not to be of fair average quaii ty>
i nspection,
prior to lifting.
will be replaced by the FCI
do
4.
NATIONAL OLD AGE PENSION SCHEME (NOARS1
It is the case of the Union of India that
(i)
there
has
National
the
the
full compliance with regard to
However, if any of
Old Age Pension Scheme.
been
gives
States
a
specif ic
of
i nstance
non-compliance, the Union of India will do the needful
/
4
(
within the framework of the Scheme.
directed to identify the
(ii) The States are
by
beneficiaries and to start making payments latest
1st January, 2002.
(iii)
Territories
We
to
di rect
the
State
Govts.I
Union
make payments promptly by the 7th
each month.
. . .5/-
of
i
i •
5.
ANNAPURNA SCHEME
The
i denti fy
States/ Union territories are directed to
r.he
benefici aries and distribute the
grain
latest by 1st .January, 2002.
6.
r
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (ICDS)
(i)
We
di rect.
Terri tor i es
to
i mpl erne nt
Devel opment.
Scheme (ICDS) in full and to ensure
that
every
di shurs i ng
shall
ICDS
Govts./
Union
Integrated
Child
State
the
• the
centre in the
country
provide as under:
()
Each child up to 6 years
of
age to get 300 calories and 8-10 grams of
protein;
(b)
Each adolescent girl to
get
500 calories and 20-25 grams of proetin;
c
(c)
nursing
Each pregnant woman and:each
mother
to get 500 calorie^-.-ancl^ : hj-|
20-25 grams of protein;
(d)
get
600
Each
calories
malnourished child—,to..
and
16-20
grams
protein;
/
(e) Have a disbursement centre
every settlement,
. . V—... • . ..
.
,• 1.’^
of
?
30
’
9
(ii)
It is■ the
case
of the Union of India
that
.
•'S
"
’
•
' ‘
there
has been full compliance of its obligations, if
any,
under the Scheme.
However, if any of the States
gives a specific instance of non-compliance, the Union
of
of
India wi11 do the needful within the framework
the Scheme.
/
7.
NATIONAL MATERNITY BENEFIT•SCHEME (NMBS)
State
the
(1)
We
di rect
Terri Tories
to
implement
Govts./
National
the
Uni on
Materni t.y
Benefit Scheme (NMBS) by paying all BPL pregnant women
i
500/-
Rs.
through the Sarpanch 8-12 weeks prior
to
delivery for each of the first two births.
(ii) It is the case of the Union of India that
i
there
has
been
under the Scheme.
a
specific
India
full compliance of
its
obii gati ons
However, if any of the States gives
insTance of non-compliance, the Union
of
will do the needful within the framework of the
d;?
Scheme.
8.
NATIONAL FAMILY BENEFIT SCHEME
(i)
Terri Tories
Govts J/
Union
to implement the National Family
Benefit
We
di rect
the
Scheme and pay a BPL family Rs.
State
10,000/- wiThin four
31
■ weeks
primary
wnenever the
through a local Sarpanch,
fami 1y dies.
bread winner of the
We
9.
that
di rect
a
copy
e
of
order
th i s
be
English by the
languages and in
Terri tor ies n d promi nently
States/
Union
respective
School
Govt.
Panchayats:
Gram
i n all
displayed
translated in regional
I
Buildings and Fair Price Shops.
*1
i
order to ensure
In
10.
selection
transparency i n
to these Schemes,
and their access
of
all
a list of
Panchayats wi 11 also display
Gram
the
Copies of
various Schemes.
the
under
' beneficiaries
be
beneficiaries shal 1
1
i
st
of
and
the
the Schemes
Panchayats to members of
by
the
Gram
made avai1 able
beneficiaries
public for inspecti on.
/
j
I
11 .
We
direct
Doordarshan and AIR to
adequate1y
and this order.
publi ci se various Schemes
We direct the
States
this
and Union
Territories to ensure compli ance
.They will
order.
affidavits
Chief Secretaries of each of the
in
report compliance
this Court within 8 weeks
of
by . filing
from
today
e
...8/-
t-’
i
Wl T,h
copies
to the
Attorney Genera! and counsel ■■
.
the petitioner.
I;.-?.’.
‘
grant. liberty to the
Union of India to file
a ft'; d a v i r. ‘ pursuant.
to the order of this Court
dated
-1st November, 2001 .
L i st
February,
to
the
the
matter for further orders on 11th
In the meanwhile, liberty is granted
2002.
parties to
apply for further
directions,
if
any .
(B- N.
(K.
New Delhi
November 28, 2001 ,
G,
J,
KIRPAL)
..a
BALAKRISHNAN)
i
j
i
*
• .
' .
.
■
•:
• <
/
• '';;; ?■
’ ’T.ar
..i
•,h.
■•■••J'’
••
i
J <. ,
i
i
ll O
07633
1
t)0CU?U^
■
33
ITEM b/o.35
SECTION PH
1
Court No.
-■
supreme
COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
INDIA
WI
Writ Petition(Civil) NO.1S6/2001
oner (e)
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
VERSUS
Respondent (s
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
i relief and office
----- d°20( Appln'/for’ directione)
order
IA No
in filing compliance affidavit)
IA No. 13 (Appln. for c/delay
-
Petition
Date : 11/02/2002 This
CORAM :
was
cal led on for hearing today
HON-BLE MR. JUSTICE BJj. ^IRPAL
’ JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
hon’ble hr.
For Petitioner (s)
Mr.
Dr.
Mr .
Ms.
For Respondent (s)
U 0 I
F C I
i/State
of Assam
/
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
State.of Andhra Pradesh
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra i Nagar
Haveli, Daman 4 Diu
and Lakshadweeep
Colin Gonsalvez,. Adv.
Sweta Kakkad,
Yug Chaudhary, Ms.
Ip Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Aparna Bhat and
Tashi D. Bhutia, Advs.
Ms . Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Balaram Das, Adv,
Mr . B
Ms . Indra Sawhney, Adv.
Kriehna^Sarma'and Mr. V K Sidharthan,
Adv6 . for Corporate Law Group, Advs.
Mb .
MS .
Mr . An I I Slir I vastav , Adv.
Mr.. T V Ratnam, Adv,
Mr. 'K Subba Rao, Adv.
.Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. K C Kaushik, Adv.
Mr . D S Mahra, Adv.
State of Bihar
Mr, 8 8 Singh, Adv.
State of Chhattisgarh
Mr . Prakash Shrivastava, Adv.
...2/-
r
34
UT of Chandigarh
Ms, Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms, Shomila Bakshi and Ms.
‘Advs.
Aishwarya Rao,
NCT Delhi
Mr, Ashok Bhan, Ms, Sunita Sharma,
Mr, K C Kaushik and Mr. D S Mahra, Advs,
St^te of Goa
Me, A Subhashini i Adv
State of Gujarat
Me. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Me, Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
Me.
State of Haryana
State of Himachal
Pradesh
State of Jharkhand
Mr,
Mr.
Mr,
Me,
Me,
Surya Kant sharma, Adv. Genl.
J,P. Dhanda, Adv.
K.P. Singh, Adv.
Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv.
Mr. Nareeh K Sharma, Adv.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr,
Mr.
Rajeeh Pathak, Adv.
Arup Banerjee, Adv.
Prem Prakash, Adv.
Ashok Mathur, Adv.
State of Jammu & Kashmsir
Mr. Anie Suhrawardy, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr, Sanjay R Hogdo, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr, Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
\ ’
“
1
J
<;tate of Maharashtra
Mr. S S Shinde, Adv.
Mr. S V Deshpande, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
State of M.P.
Mr, Satieh K Agnihotri, AAdv.
Mr, Anil K Pandey and Mr., Rohit Kumar
Singh, Advs.
State of Mizoram
Me, Hemantika
Wahi Adv.
----- -.WIP>W wmil,
Ms, rSumita Hazarika, Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr, s K Shandilya, Adv.
Me, V D Khanna, Adv.
State pf Orissa
Mr, J.K. Dae, Adv,.
State of Punjab
Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R s Suri, Adv.
Govt. of Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv.
35
I
State of Rajasthan
Ms. Sandhya Goswami and Mr.
M p S Tomar,
Advs.
State of Sikkim
State of Tripura
State of Tamil Nadu
State of Uttranchal
State of U.P.
State of West Bonga'
.for applicants in
iA
*A No. 1 1
Mr, A Mariarputham, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr.
Advs. f0r h/6. Arputhami
/Anurag D Mathur,
Aruna & 'co. '. Adva'.
Mr. Gopal Singh, Ms, Vimla Sinha
Singh, Advs.
& Mr. Rahul
> Mr. p n rRamalingam, Adv.
Mr. v Balaji, Adv’’
Me. Rachana Srivastava,
Adv.
Mr.
KU,,IQr Singh,
C
Adv.
Mr. Ashok K Srivastava,
i ’ Adv.
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,
4 Mr. J.R. Das, Advs.
Ms'
Rohtae^ ASG.
Mr' R^h yuB0QSln "aheshwari,
Adv.
Mr’ p !h MQheshwari, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Maheshwari,
Adv.
UPON hearing counse1 t •
the Court made the foilowi ng
0 R DZ JE R
At
the request of the
counsel for the
the matter i6
adjourned hy three
weeks.
Patit i oner,
Ka1yan1.
(SHELLY SENGUPTA)
COURT MASTER
36
Court No. 2
i
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
■
SUPREME
COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IND
572674
•
Writ Petltlon(Clvll) No.196/2001
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS,
Respondent (e)
(With applns.(s) for Interim relief and modification of court’s order<•
and office report)
(with lAs 14, 15,
17 and 18 for direction anil permission to file
addl. documents )
Date : 04/03/2002 Th 16
Petition
was
called nn fnr hearing today.
Certified to be tree eopy
CORAM :
HON’BLE ’MR, JUSTICE B.N, KIRPAL
HON’BLE MR, JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
Assistant Registrar
Supreme Court off Mie
For PotiElohoF (o)
Mr. 06Hn Gongalvafij Adv!
Dr. Yug Chaudhary, Me. Sweta Kakkad,
Mr. P Ramesh Kumar & Ms. Aparha Bhat Advs.
For Respondent (s)
U 0 I
F C I
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General
Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Manlsh Singhvl, Adv.
B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
State of Assam
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
k
Ms. Asha Q Nair, Adv.
Ms. Krishna Sarma and Mr. V K Sldharthan,
Advs, for Corporate Law Group, Advs.
Mr, Anil Shrlvastav, Adv.
State of Andhra Pradesh
Mr. T v Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
Havel 1, Daman & Dlu
and Lakshadweeep
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. K C Kaushlk, Adv.
Mr. D S Mahra, Adv.
State of Bihar
Mr/s Kumar Rajesh Singh & B B Singh, Adve.
State of Chhattisgarh
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prakash Shrlvastava, Adv.
UT of Chandigarh.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms.
Advs.
<L
Aishwarya Rao,
i
*NCT Delhi
Mr. Mukul Rohtagl, ASG.
M/s Rishi Maheshwarl,j f
R.K.Maheshwarl, &
Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwarl, Advs,
State of Goa
Ms. A Subhashlnl, Adv.
State of Gujarat
Ms. Hemantlka Wahl, Adv.
Ms. Sumlta Hazarlka, Adv.
State of Haryana
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
State of Himachal
Pradesh
J.p. Dhanda, Adv.
K.P. Singh, Adv.
D.S. Nagar, Adv.
Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv.
Mr. Nareeh K Sharma, Adv.
State of Jharkhand
Mr, rRajeeh
J ‘ Pathak,
‘
, Adv.
Mr, Ashok Mathur, Adv.
State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. An1e Suhrawardy, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv,
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
State of Maharashtra
Mr. S S Shlnde, Adv,
Mr. S v Deshpande, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
State of M.P.
Mr. B.s. Banthia, Adv.
Mr. Satish K Agnlhotrl, Adv.
Slate of Mizoram
Ms. Hemantlka Wahl, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarlka, Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms . V D Khanna, Adv.
State of Ori ssa
Mr. J.K. Das, Adv.
?tate of Punjab
Ms. Jayshree Anand, Addl.Adv.Genl., Pb.
Mr. G Sivabalamurugan, Mr. Rajeev Sharma
and Mr.
■ ■■ . R S Suri, Advs.
Qovti of Pondicherry
Hr, v G Pragma Adv,
State of Rajasthan
Ms . Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
State of Sikkim
Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr. /Anurag
... „w zD Mathur,
Advs. for M/s, Arputham, Aruna lwCo.,Adve.
State of Tripura
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
2
...az
37
38
)
^Hte of Tamil Nadu
Ms , Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
State of Uttranchal
MS , Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
State of U.P.
Mr , Prakash Singh, Adv.
Mr Ashok K srivastava, Adv.
State of West Bengal
-
Mr t
Mr.*
Mr.
- Mr.
Venugopali Sr. Adv.
Tara
Chandra Sharma, Adv.
•,
Ajay Sharma, Adv.
Rujwuv Sharma, Adv•
k,K.
Mr- K.h, Nobln Singh, Adv.
Mr. M. Glreesh Kumar, Adv.
made the following
UPON hearing counsel the Court
ORDER
State of Manipur
Notice to
notice to the State Governments.
the respective State Standing Counsel
be served. through
Reply to the application
returnable on 19th March, 2002.
from today and especial 1y
should be filed within ten days
State Governments
with regard to the proposal that the
the
tpe lines of
schemes along with
should frame
Schemed Copies of the
Maharashtra Employment Guarantee
by the applicant to the counsel for
application be given
Issue
already served, along with
the various States today, if not
a copy of the order of the Court.
Kalyanl.
K
(s\l. GOYAL)
COURT MASTER
*
■
:■
39
ITEM No.I
Court No. 8
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
court
of
COURT
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
supreme
Writ Pet 11ion(Civi I ) Mo. I 96/2001
INDIA
| C**War
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
•581118
trfj*
Pei itioner • s )
!
...
I Duprene C<^rt et
Rai oondent (s)
(Wi th applns,(s ) for interim relief and modification of
court’s order
1 and directions and interim directions and permission
to submit
addl.documents and officej report)
Date : 02/04/2002 This
Pet i 11 on
was
called on for hearing today.
%
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. MOHAPATRA
HON’BLF MR. JUSTICE BRI J ESH KUMAR
i
For Petitioner (s)
For Respondent (s)
U O I
F C I
State of Assam
State of Arunac.hal
Pradesh
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Adv.
Dr. Yug Chaudhary, Ms. CSweta Kakkad,
Mr . P Ramesh Kumar & Ms.. Aparna Bhat Advs.
Mr,
Ms.
Mr,
Mr
**. ,
Soli J Sorab.iee, Attorney General
Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Manish Sinqhvi, Adv.
B V Bal aram Das, Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
Ms . Asha G Nair, Adv.
Ms. Krishna Sarma and Mr. V "
V K Sidharthan.
Advs .. for Corporate Law Group.
Advs.
Mr . Anil Shr1vastav, Adv.
State of Andhra Pradesh
Mr . T V Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar. Dadra A Magar
Haveli. Daman A Diu
and Lakshadweeep
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. K C Kaush ik, Adv.
Mr. D S Mahra, Adv.
State of Bihar
Mr/s Kumar Ra.iesh Singh & B B Singh, Advs.
State of Chhattisgarh
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. /Adv.
Mi , Prakash Shrivastava,. Adv.
UT of Chandigarh
Ms . lamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms . Shorn ila Bakshi and Ms.
Advs .
Aishwarya Rao,
40
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG.
M/s Rishi Maheshwari. R.K.Maheshwari.
Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari. Advs.
Goa
Ms , A Subhashini, Adv.
Gu.ia rat
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika. Adv.
Haryana
Mr .
Mr .
Mr .
Ms.
J .P. Chanda, Adv.
K.P. Singh. Adv.
D.S. Naqar, Adv.
Raj Rani Chanda. Adv .
radesh
Mr.
Naresh K Sharrna, Adv.
. of Jharkhand
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur. Adv.
&
Himachal
Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. An is Suhrawardy. Adv .
titate of Kerala
Mr, Ramesh Babu M R. Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr . Sanjay R Hsqde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra. Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr, Ran.ian Mukherjee. Adv.
State of Maharashtra
Mr, S S Shinde. Adv.
Mr . S V Deshpande. Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr h H Nobln Singh, Adv.
State of M.P,
Mr . B.S. Banthia. Adv.
Mr . Satish K Agnihotri, Adv.
State of Mizoram
Ms. Hemantika Wahi. Adv.
Ma. Sumita Hazarika. Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr.
Ms ,
State of Orissa
Mr. J.K. Das. Adv ,
State of Punjab
Ms, Jayshree Anand. Addl,Adv.Genl., Ph.
Mr. G Sivaba1amurugan. Mr. Rajeev Sharma
and Mr. R S Suri, Advs.
Govt, of Pondicherry
Mr, V G Pragasam, Adv.
State of Rajasthan
Ms.
State of Sikkim
Mr. A Mar 1arputham, Adv.
Ms.
Aruna Mathur and Mr.
Anurag D Mathur.
Advs . for M/s. Arputham. Aruna & Co..Advs.
State of Tripura
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh. Adv.
S K Shand!1 ya, Adv.
V D Khanna, Adv.
Sandliya Goswami .
Adv.
9 /-
41
3
State of Tamil Nadu
Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
State of UttranchnI
Mb , Rachana Srivautava, Adv.
State of U.P.
Mr . Prakash Singh, Adv.
Mr . Ashok K Srivastava, Adv.
State of West Bengal
Mr. K.K. Venugopa
1, Sr. Adv.
. ____
Mr. -Tara Chandra Sharma. Adv.
Mr, A.iay Sharma,, Z.J
Adv.
Mr, Ra.jeev Sharma,. Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr. K.H. Nobln Singh, Adv.*
Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the
fol lowing
0 R D P R
I let on 6th Apri1, 200P .
x*
(Usha Rhardwa.i )
P.S. to Registrar
k\
(S. Maikani)
Court Master
!
42
ITEM No.43
Court No, 2
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
SUPREME
COURT
OF
(
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
INDIA
579806
Certified *o be tree cewy
Writ Potition(Civi1) No,195/2001
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
.iwiwtr (Jtsd;!>PetItioner (s)
Gerts’.axjf
VERSUS
<
8u£romo Court of Indlft
UNION OF INDIA & OR8,
—
■—■■■
"Beyondent (e)
(With applns.(s) for interim relief uand modification of court’s order
and directions and interim dlrectione and permieeion to eubmit addl.
documents and office report)
i'
Date : 05/04/2002 This
Poti tion
was
called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE. B.N. KIRPAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. 0ALAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
For Petitioner (a)
For Respondent (s)
U O I
F C I
State of Assam
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr. Colin GonealveJ, Adv,
Or, Yug Chaudhary, Me. Sweta Kakkad,
Mr, P Ramesh Kumar & Me. Aparha Bhat Adve.
Mr.
M® .
Mr,
Mr,
Mr,
Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General
Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Manish Singhvi, Adv,
B v Balaram Das, Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
Ms. Asha G Nair, Adv.
Ma. Krishna
Sarma,/ Mr. V K Sidharthan and
, „ ,
Mr. J R Luwang, Advs.
for Corporate Law Group, Adve.
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.
State of Andhra Pradesh
Mr. T v Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
Ufa of Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
Haveli, Daman & Diu
and Lakshadweeep
Ms , Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. K C Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. D S Mahra, Adv.
State of Bihar
Mr/s Kumar Rajesh Singh & B B Singh, Advs.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Adv.
State of Chhattisgarh
UT of Chandigarh
MS. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms . Aishwarya Rao, Adv.
-
X ■
I NOT Delhi
i
43.
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG.
Mr, R K Maheohwari, Adv.
■
State of Goa
Me. A Subhaohini, Adv,
State of Gujarat
Mg. Hemantika Wahl, Adv,
Mg . Sumita Mazarina, Adv.
Mr, J.P. Dhanda, Adv.
Mr, k.p, Singh, Adv.
Mr. D.S, Nagar, Adv.
Ms , Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv,
State of Haryana
State of Himachal
Pradesh
Mr, Naresh K Sharma, Adv.
State of Jharkhand
Mr, Arup Banerjee, Adv,
Rajeeh Pathak, Adv.
Ashok Mathur, Adv.
Mr,
Mr.
State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. Ania Suhrawardy, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr. sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr, Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
State of Maharashtra
Mr, S s Shinde, eAdv.
Mr. S V Deshpande, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr
H
’ " ,’
'' N K Singh
i riiffu t mu
Adv. Genl.
Mr K H Nobin Singh,i Adv.
State of M.P,
Mr, Pragati
Neekhra Adv,
w, iivoniHd,
M/e.B.s. Banthia
r
and S K Agnihotri,Advs.
State of Mizoram
Ms, Hemantika Wahi, Adv,
Mo. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr, S K Shandi1 ya,
Ma . V D Khanna, Adv,Adv.
State of Orissa
Mr. J.K. Das, Adv.
State of Punjab
Ms . Jayshree Anand, Addl.Adv.Genl.
Mr.
and MrMaRSs1Sur?r,AdaJeeV Sharma
Govt, O'* Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv.
Ms . Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
State of Rajasthan
State of Sikkim
State of Tripura
Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr. Anurag D Mathur,
Advs. for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.,Adve.
Mr.
Mr.
Gopal Singh, Adv.
Rahul Singh, Adv.
...3/-
i
State of Tamil Nadu
State of UttranchaI
State of u.P.
State of West Bengal
44
Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv,
Ms • Rachana Srlvastava,
Adv.
Mr. Prakash Kumar
Singh, Adv.
Mr • Ashok K Srlvastava,
» Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar p Gupta, Sr
Mr. Jara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Adv.
Mr. AJay Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court
made the fol lowing
ORDER
Adjourned to 29th April, 2002.
(D.P. WALIA)
COURT MASTER
(S.L
COURT MASTER
»
«
K
45
ITL:M No. 20
Court No,
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
1
SUPREME
COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
INDIA
Writ Petition(Civi1) No.196/2001
PGOPLG'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Respondent (s)
(With app.lns.(s) for interim relief and modification of court’s order
and directions and interim directions and permission to submit addl.
documents and office report)
i
Cu -..e : 29/04/2002 This
Petition
was
called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.K. SEMA
For Petitioner (s)
For Respondent (s)
U O I
F C I
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Adv.
Dr. Yug Chaudhary, Ms, Sweta Kakkad,
Mr. P Ramesh Kumar & Ms. Aparna Bhat Advs.
Mr,
Ms.
Mr,
Mr.
Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General
Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Manlsh Singhvi, Adv.
B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
State of Assam
Ms. Asha G Nair, Adv.
Ms, Krishna Sarma,
Sarnia, Mr. V K Sldharthan and
Mr. J R Luwang, Advs.
for Corporate Law Group, Advs.
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
State of Andhra Pradesh
UTs of Andaman &
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv,
Mr. T v Ratnam, Adv,
Mr, K Subba Rao, Adv.
Haveli, Daman & Liu
and Lakshadweeep
Ms, Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr ,
C Kaushi Is , Adv .
Mr , D S Mahra, Adv,
Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv.
State of Rihar
Mr/s Kumar Rajesh Singh & B B Singh, Advs.
State of Chhattisgarh
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Adv.
Nicobar, Dadra
Nagar
46
NCT Delhi
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
State of Goa
Ms. A Subhashini, Adv.
State of Gujnrat
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv.
State of Maryana
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
/
State of Himachal
Pradesh
Mukul Rohtagi, ASG.
Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, «dv.
H K Maheshwari, Adv.
J. P. Dhanda, Adv.
K. P. Singh, Adv.
D.S. Nagar, Adv.
Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv.
Mr. Maresh K Sharma, Adv„
State of Jharkhand
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.
State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. Anls Suhrawardy, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh 9abu M R, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr. Ran.)an Mukherjee, Adv .
State of Maharashtra
Mr. S S Shinde, Adv.
Mr . S V Duuhpando, Adv.
I
State of Manipur
Mr. H N K Singh, Adv. Genl.
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
State of M.P.
Mr. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
M/s.B.S. Banthia and S K Agnihotri,Advs.
State of Mizoram
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms . V D Khanna, Adv.
State of Orissa
Mr. J.K. Das, Adv.
State of Punjab
Mr. Sarup Singh, Sr. Add I . Adv. Genl.
Mr. K Mahalik, Mr. Rajeev Sharma
and Mr. R S Suri, Advs.
Govt, of Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv.
State of Rajasthan
Ms. Sandhya Gosv/ami . Adv.
State of Sikkim
Mr. ’ Sonam P. Wangdi. Adv. Gen 1.
Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr. Anurag D Mathur,
47
te of Tripura
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr, Rahul Singh, Adv,
Its Of Tamil Nadu
M,
M. T. Harish Kumar, Adv^
Adv.
Ms, Revathy Raghavan, AMr». Rachana Srivastava, Adv .
tate of Uttranchal
•tale of U.P.
Mr, Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr, Ashok K Srivastava, Adv.
>tate of West Bengal
Mr. Bhaskar P Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr, Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv,
made the following
UPON hearing counsel the Court
ORDER
i
List on §th May, 2002,
(JANKI BHATIA)
COURT MASTER
Kalyani.
X
J
MIUL
48
BM No,20
Court Nd. i
SECTION Pit
A/N MATTER
SUPREME
COURT
OF
COURT
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
INDIA
Writ
Petition(civi 1) No.196/2001
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVII, LISERTies
Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
4 OR8.
Respondent (s)
(With applns.((8 ) for t.
interim relief and r„
and directionsj and interim
■’ directions and
documents and office report)
Date : 29/04/2002 This
Petition
was
ca11ed on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. F
HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE ARIJITKIRPAL
PA SA YA T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.K.
SEMA
For Petitioner (s)
Mr. Colin Gonsalves,
Adv.
Dr. Vug Chaudhary,
Ms. Sweta Kakkad,
Mr.
Ramesh Kumar
& Ms. Aparna Bhat Advs.
For rRespondent (s)
U O I
Mr,
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
F C I
Ms, Indra Sawhney, Adv.
State of Assam
Me. Asha Q Nair,
Nair, z,Adv.
Ms. Krishna Sarrna
,
‘....... Mr,
V K Sldharthan and
Luwang, Advs.
for Corporate
Law Group, Advs.
State of Arunacha?
Pradesh
Mr. Anil Shrlvastav,
Adv.
State of Andhra Pradesh
UTs of Andaman &&
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
Have 1i, Daman & D1 u
and Lakshadweeep
State of Bihar
Stat© of
Chhattisgarh
UT of Chandigarh
«:°rney
Man<sh Singhvi, Adv.
B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma,
Adv.
Mr. N C Kauohik, Adv
Mr, D s Mahra, Adv. .
Mr, Ashok Bhan, Adv,
Mr/s Kumar Ra.jesh Singh
8 S Singh, Advs .
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. aAdv.
Mr. Prakash Shrivastava,, Adv.
Ms. Karnini Jaiswal,
Ms*. Aishwarya Rao, Adv.
Adv.
2
NCT Delhi
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mukul Rohtagi, ASG.
Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
Shally Bhasln Maheshwari, Adv.
R K Maheshwari, Adv.
State of Goa
Ms. A Subhashini, Adv.
State of Gujarat
Ms. Hemantlka Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv.
State of Haryana
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
State of Himachal
Pradesh
J. P. Dhanda, Adv,
K. P. Singh, Adv.
D.S. Nagar, Adv.
Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv.
Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Adv’.
State of Jharkhand
State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. ’
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
State of Maharashtra
Mr. S S Shmde, Adv.
Mr. S V Deshpande, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr. H N K Singh, Adv. Genl.
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
State of M.P.
Mr. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
M/s.B.S* Banthia and S K Agnihotri,Advs.
State of Mizoram
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Sumita HazaMka, Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr, S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms. V D Khanna, Adv.
State of Orissa
Mr. J. K. Das, Adv.
State of Punjab
Mr. Sarup Singh, Sr. Addl. Adv. Genl.
Mr. K Mahalik, Mr. Rajeev Sharma
and Mr. R S Suri, Advs.
Govt, of Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasum, Adv.
State of Rajasthan
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
State of Sikkim
Mr. Sonam P. Wangdi, Adv. Genl.
Mr. A Marlarputham, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr. Anurag D Mathur,
Advs. for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.,Advs.
49®
50
State of Tripyra
State of Tamil Nadu
Mr. Gopal. wSingh
i I lyi I t
Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
M. T. Harish Kumar, Adv.
Mi;, Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
State of Uttranchal
Ms, Rachana Srivaetava, Adv .
State of u.P,
Mr.
State of West Bengal
Mr. Bhaekar P Gupta, c.
Sr.. Adv.
Mr.
Chandra Sharma,» Adv.
Mr, Ajay Sharma, Adv,.
Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashok
Ashok. K Srlvastava, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made
the following
order
List on 6th May, 2002.
Kalyanl.
(JANKI BHATIA)
COURT MASTER
^3
51
Court No.
ITEM No.28
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
1
?N D I A
COURT
SUPREME
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
592366
Wr i * Petition(Civi1) No.196/2001
Pet i t toner t s
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
VERSUS
Respotiden t
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
( y
court’s order
(With applns.(s) for interim relief and modification uf
)
inter
im
di
rect
ions
and directions and
08/05/2002 This
CORMl :
PeIi Lion
was
called on for hearing today.
I
■
THii CH I EK uU.sriCbHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUIT PASAYA1
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.h. SEMA
For ’ Pet i 11oner (s)
For*Respondent (s)
TWO 1
F C 1
State of Assam
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
Certified to be
eojn
i
Assistant fyciatrtrw (Jed
i
Suprctnc Ccqrtof
Mr. Colin Gonsalves. Adv.
Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Adv.
Mr. P Ramesh Kumar k Ms. AparnaThat Ad'’ s.
Mr. Soli J Sorab.jee, Attorney General
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ad v.
Mr. Manish Singhvi, Adv.
Mr. B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Ils.
Indra Sawhney,
Adv
Ms. Asha G Nair, Adv.
Ms. Krishna Sarma, Mr. V K S i dh.a r than, Ad vs
for Corporate Law Group, Ad vs
Mr. Anil Shrivastav,
Adv
State of Andhra Pradesh
Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
Havel i, Daman & Diu
and Lakshadweeep
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
M r . K C Kaushik, Ad v.
Mr. D S Mahra, Adv.
State of Bihar
Mr/s Kumar Rajesh Singh &. B B Singh, Ad vs.
State of Chhattisgarh
M r. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prakash Shrivastavu, Adv.
UT of Chandigarh
,
Ms.
’Ms.
Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Aishwarya Rao, Adv,
i
j.
52
I
i, ASG.
Mr, Mukul Rohtagi
Maheshsvari. Adv. .
Mr.
•1 Bhasin Maheshwaii, Adv .
ms. stpuy
Maheshwari. AdvMr. R &
Ms.
/ Goa
Adv.
• * -i Wahi, Adv .
Hemantika
Ms
Gupta. Adv.
Ms . Aruna C ;
Dhanda, Adv.
Mr • J. P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. K. P. Hagar. Adv.
Mr. D. S. Hani Dhanda, Adv.
Ms. Raj
Gujarat
t Haryana
of Himachal
. de ah
of
A Subhash ini.
Jharkhand
K Sharma, Adv.
Mr , Maresh
Ashok Mathur, Ac?'dv
Mr . Arup Banerjee. Ad
Mr .
& Kashmir
Suhrawardy. Adv.
Mr. An is
/e of .) arnmu
Mr. Baine sh Babu M R- Adv.
»te of Kerala
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
Karnataka
Ate of
Mr.
Mukherjee, Adv.
Banjan
Mr .
of Meghalaya
Uat c
S Shinde, Adv.
Mr ■ S
Deshpande, Adv.
Maharashtr a
State of
Mr . $ V I-- • , Adv. deniB N K Singh,
Mr.
J
Singh,
Adv.
State of Manipor
Mr K H Nob in i—
■| Neekhra, Adv.
Mr. Pragati
Adv.
M/s.B.S. Banth ia.
State of M.P* “i Wahi> Adv.
Hemantika
Ms
Hazarika, Adv.
&
/State of Gujarat
Ms Sumita 1—
Mizoram
S K Shandilya, Adv.
Mr.
V D Khanna. Adv
A- .
State of Nagaland
Ms .
Das, Adv.
Mr . J . K •
Adv. Genl
State of Orissa
Sr, Add 1■
Sarup Singh,
Sharma
Mr •
Mr. Rajeev
K Mahalik,
State of Punjab
Mn •
S Suri. Advs.
and Mr• R L Adv .
V G Pragasam,
Mr
.
Adv.
Govt. of Pond i cherry
Sandhya Goswami,
Ms
.
Gen 1 •
State of Rajasthan
Sonam P- «angdi. Adv.
Mr. A Mar iarputliam, Adv.
Anurag 1> Mathur,
State of Sikkim
Mr .
and
Mr
■
, Ad vs.
Aruna Mathur a.
Aruna j/co,
t
Ms.
Arputham
.
.
\Advs • for M /s .
-• • T
gwr I o
07639
\
/v
te/
HEALTH
y)I
aO* /
*4
53
I
Mi 1 Nadu
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
Adv.
",
M. T. Harish Kumar,
Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
Ajttranchal
Adv.
Ms. Rachana Sr ivastava,
U.P.
Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Ashok K.
Jjura
West Bengal
Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar P Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.
fol lowing
* , the Court made the
UPON hearing Counsel^
ORDER
/
/
After
hearing
counse1
for the
part i es,
of the signed order.
issued the directions in terms
for further directions
Matter to come up
the
after
weeks.
(S.Thapar)
PS to Registrar
(S.L. Goyal)
Court Master
on the file.
The signed order is placed
/
/
Court
12
54
IN THE SUPRPEME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
i
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO,
People’s Union for Civil Liberties
595038
19E OF 2001
-------“
Pet tioner Cs)
ortifiad to tx trao
versus
f
, Asslotsnt Registry
Union of India & Others
5^.
-luotemo Court OS ladfc Respondent
Ii
. __
(s)
I — HT—:---- —
♦
ORDER
After hearing learned counsel for the parties we issue
the following directions.
(a)
The
Gram Panchayats shall frame
employment
generat ion
proposals
Samp.oorna
Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) guidelines
in
accordance
with
the
for creation of useful community assets that have
the
potential
ga inf ul
f or
employment
generat ing
such
conservation,
as
sustained
and
and
soi 1
water
af forestat ion
and
agro-horticulture,
salvipasture, minor irrigation
and
These
1 i nk
approved
roads.
and
proposals
sanctioned by the Gram
sha J. 1
. be
Panchayats
and the work started expeditiously.
(b)
The
programme
respondents
towards
sha 11
agricultural
focus
wage
the
SGRY
earners,
non-agricultural unskilled wage earners, marginal
to
/
55
La
ST
particular, SC and
farmers
and,
in
whose
wage
i ncome
const i tubes
a
persons
reasonab1e
I
and to give
of their household income
in employment, and within this
priority to them
to women.
sector shall give priority
proport ion
(c)
The respondents'shall make the wage
payment
on a weekly basis.
■ •\ i
(d)
The
respondents shall prohibit the
use
of
contractors in the SGRY programme.
j
i
f inane ia1
Central Government shall make
The
(e)
employment
different
the
under
releases
schedule,
to each State on
generat ion schemes
State Governments fulfil the
provided that the
the SGRY. The State
condi t ions as prescribed by
these
fulfil
d i rected to
are
Governments
the SGRY expeditiously.
cond i t ions and implement
utilisation
will furnish
The State Government
the f urn i shing of
certificate and it is only on
amounts shall be re leased.
the same that further
in
shall only be uti 1 ised
provided
f
unds
The
respect of SGRY programme
56
The
(f )
Gram Sabhas are entitled to
conduct
a
oyment schemes and
social audit into all Food/Empl’
to report all instances of misuse of funds to the
respective implementing authorities, who shall on
receipt
of such complaints,
investigate and take
appropriate action in accordance with law.
On
(g)
a
Execut ive
complaint
being made
Of f icer
of
(CEO)/Collector
the
to
Zilla
the
Ch i e f
Panchayat
regard ing non-compliance of
the
of this Court the concerned CEO/Collector
the
features of
record the sa1 lent
shal 1
for this
complaint in a register maintained
orders
purpose, acknowledge receipt of the complaint and
this Court’s
forthwith secure compliance with
order.
I
j
>
the Districts in the
(h) The CEO/Collector of all
shal 1 scrutinize the
States and territories
agenc i es
act ion taken by all the implement ing
compliance
within their jur isd i ct ion to ensure
report to the Chief
with this Court's orders and
i
Secretary.
I
57
implementat ion of the
The responsibility for
be that of the
order of this Court shai 1
ensure
The Chief Secretary will
CEO/Collector.
Court.
comp1i ance with the order of this
( i)
Saxena, former Planning Secretary,
Shankaran,
S. R.
Government of India, and Mr.
Government
former Secretary, Rural'Development,
Commissioners of this
of India, shall function as
any
looking into
Court for the purpose of
the
after
pens ist
may
that
gr i evance
resolut ion procedure
above^ment ioned gr ievance
(j ) Dr.
/
N.C.
has been exhausted.
course
On the Commissioner’s recommending a
compliance with this Court’s
of action to ensure
administrations ,
the State Government/UT
order,
such recommendation and
forthwith
act
upon
shal 1
(k)
(
report compliance.
4
/ z
liberty to take
(1) The commissioners shall be at
1nd ividuals and reliable
ass i stance of
the
Territories:
organ!zat ions in the State and Union
f ul ly cooperate
All officials are d i rected.to
58
persons/organizations,
with
to bring
such
and :implementat
1 pmpntat ion of
effective
about
the
monitoring
orders of this Court.
monitor the
aire empowered to
Sabhas
(m) The Gram
schemes and have
the various
of
implementation
to, inter
information re1at ing
access to relevant
the
benefic iar ies and
of
’
selection
alia,
Sabhas can
The
Gram
benef its.
disbursement of
out
the manner set
in
gr ievance(s)
ra i se their
ievance(s ) sha.l 1
of
the
gr
edressal
above and the r
be done accord i ngly■
pet i t ioner that the
done
(n) It has been
is not be i ng
BPL
famili
es
ident i ficat ion of
the
for
criteria
the
that
and
properly
neither
BPL familieS are
the
identification of
State
Central and the
The
uniform.
clear nor
clear
frame
to
directed
are
Governments
identification of BPL
proper
for
guidelines
stated by the
t
f am i1ie s’
that the ration
shall
ensure
The respondents
(o)
during
throughout the month,
open
shops pemain
59
f
I
f ixed
l
hours,
the
deta i1s
of
wh i ch
will
be
displayed on the notice board.
further directions after 12 weeks.
Tp come up for
CJ I
i
A
(Ar'ijit Pasayat)
J
New Dei Ih i ,
May 08, 2002
(H.K. Sema)
6C
Court No.
ITEM No.27
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
1
0
COURT
SUPREMEj
OrF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
INDIA
Writ Petition(Civi1) No.196/2001
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
Respondent (e)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
\
I
_.J modification of court’s order
(With applns.(s) for interim relief and
and directions and interim directions
“~ and office report)
WITH WP(C) 498/2001
cal led on for hearing today.
Date : 02/09/2002 This Petition was
CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. justice
v---- ’ k.g. balakrishnan
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
For Petitioner (s)
For Respondent (s)
U 0 I
F C I
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Adv.
Sweta Kakkad,
Dr. Yug Chaudhary, Ms.
& Ms. Aparna Bhat Advs.
P
Ramesh
Kumar
Mr.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Mr. Manish Singhvi, Adv.
Mr. B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
Asha G Nair, Adv.
Ms. Krishna Sarma and Mr. V K Sidharthan,
Advs. for Corporate Law Group, Advs.
State of Assam
MS .
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv .
State of Andhra Pradesh
Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv.
Mr . K Subba Rao, Adv.
Kai lash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
K C Kaushik, Adv.
D S Mahra, Adv.
Sunita Sharma, Adv.
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
HaVeli, Daman & Diu
and Lakshadweeep
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
State of Bihar .
Advs.
Mr/s Kumar Rajesh Singh & B B Singh,
State of Chhattisgarh
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr, Prakash Shrivastava, Adv.
UT of Chandigarh
Ms . Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
MS. Shomila Bakshi and Ms.
Aishwarya Rao>
61
Jo.
NOT Delhi
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG.
M/s Rishi Maheshwari, R.K.Maheshwar1, &
Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, Advs
Advs..
State of Goa
Ms. A Subhashi ni, Adv.
State of Gujarat
Ms . Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
State of Haryana
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
J.P.
J . P. Dhanda, Adv.
K.P. Singh, Adv.
Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv .
I
State of Himachal
Pradesh
Mr. Maresh K Sharma, Adv .
State of Jharkhand
Mr. Arup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr . Ashok Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Aslam Gom , Adv. Genl.
Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.
State of Jammu & Kashmir
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv .
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mi tra, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr
State of Maharashtra
Mr. S S Shinde, Adv.
Mr. S V Deshpande, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K H Nobin Singh. Adv .
State of M.P.
Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.
Mr . Satish K Agnihotri, Adv .
State of Mizoram
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
State of Nagaland
State of Orissa
State of Punjab
Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv .
Mr. Kail ash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms. V D Khanna, Adv.
Mr . j.K. Das, Adv.
Mr . G Sivabalamurugan, Mr. Rajeev Sharma
end Mr. RS Suri, Advs.
Govt, of Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv.
State of Rajasthan
Ms . Sandhya Goswami, Adv .
State of Sikkim
.
Mr. AArunaaMathJrmandAdvMr.
Anurag 0 Mathur,
Mathur
and
Mr
.
Ms .
Arputham,
Aruna & Co.,Advs.
,
Advs-. for M/s. >..
State of Tr ipura
Mr . Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr . Rahul Singh, Adv.
f
T am4 1
MaHI I
Ms .
Revathv Raqhavan, Adv .
62
*
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
;e of Uttranchal
Mr. Prakash Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashok K Srivastava, Adv.
te of U.P.
ite
Mr Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv .
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.
Mr Rajaev
Rajeov Sharma, Adv.
of West Bengal
WP(C) 498/2001
>r Petitioner
Mr . Bhim Singh, Adv.
Mr. B.S. Billowria, Adv.
Mr. O.K. Garg, Adv.
Ms. Mesnakshi Arora, Adv.
Mr. Manish Singhvi, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balararn Das, Adv
Adv..
or Respondent
Mr. Aslam Goni, Adv. Genl.
Mr. Ajnis Suhrawardy, Adv.
- the
•he Court made the fol lowing
UPON hearing counsel ORDER
WP(C) 196/2001
2002 .
List on 3rd September,
WP ( CJ_4,98jL2^0. 1
The
Union
of
India
will give
response
to
the
in the
Singh indicating the area
affidavit- of Shri Jagdev
Meenakshi
relief. Ms.
which
require
camps of the migrants
filed giving
detailed affidavit has been
Arora says that a
have been
to the camps which
regard
with
the report
remain supplementary report
of
camps
v i s i ted. . if any areas
List after four weeks.
within
three
weeks.
be filed
will
to be
rate relief package
expect
at
any
we
In the meantime,
given to the migrant refugees.
Kalyani
GOYAL)
(S
:T
MASTER
CO’
63
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
£ourt No.
ITE=H No.2
SUPREME
COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
INDIA
Writ Petition(Civi1) No.196/2001
Petitioner (s^
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
4'
Versus
i
•X-J
Respondent (f
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (With W>1n..(.)
and directions and
modification of court’s order
(with
ions! filed by Ms.Aparna Bhat,adv. and
s sissis: "ft s N/..corPor.te l.»
Group,advs. )
WtTH-WPfC) (w4-th apptn
49O/200T—^
for di root inna—and pY~pArt
Petition
Date : 03/09/2002 This
CORAM :
was
cal 1©d on for hearing today.
i
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
HON’BLE MR.; JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
For Petitioner (s)
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Adv.
Ms*. Aparna Bhat Adv.
Ms. Swota Kakkad,adv.
For Respondent (s)
For U.O.I.’
F C I
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Mr. Manish Singhvi, Adv.
Mr. B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
State- of Assam
Ms. Asha G Nair, Adv.
Ms. Krishna Sarma and Mr V K Sidharthan,
Advs. for Corporate Law Group, Advs.
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv,
I
State of Andhra Pradesh
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
Haveli, Daman & Diu
and Lakshadweeep
State of Bihar
State of Chhattisgarh -
Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
K C Kaushik, Adv.
D S Mahra, Adv.
Sunita Sharma, Adv.
B B Singh, Advs.
Mr/s Kumar Rajesh Singh &
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Drakflfih shrivastava, Adv.
64
/
UT of Chandigarh
Ms, Kamini Jalswal, Adv.
Ms. Shomlla Bakshi and Ms.
Advs,
r
/
i
Aishwarya Rao,
NCT Delhi
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG.
M/s Rishi Maheshwari, R.K.Maheshwari, &
Ms. Shally 'Bhasin Maheshwari, Advs.
State of Goa
Ms. A Subhashin 1, Adv.
State of Gujarat
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
State of Haryana
Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv.
Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv.
State of Himachal
Pradesh
...2/-
Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Adv,
State of Jharkhand
Mr. Arup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.
I
State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. Aslam Goni, Adv. Genl.
Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. Rameeh Babu M R, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
State of Maharashtra
Mr. S S Shinde, Adv.
Mr. S V Deshpande, Adv.for
Mr. V.N.Radhupathy,adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
State of M.P.
Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.
Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Adv.
State of Mizoram
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
SumiJta Hazarika, Adv.
Ms. Sumilta
State of Nagaland
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S K Shand11ya, Adv.
Ms. V D Khanna, Adv.
State of Orissa
Mr. J.K. Das, Adv.
State .of Punjab
Mr. R S Suri, Advs.
Govt, of Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv.
State of Rajasthan
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
State of Sikkim
Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr. Anurag D Mathur,
Cz-a
Advs. for M/s. ArniJt.hom. Arimo
65
Mr
Mr
te of Tripura
. Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
Ms
Ms. Rachana Srivastava; Adv.
ate of Tamil Nadu
State of• uttranchal
K srivastava, Adv.
State of U.P.
Mr. Ashok
State of West Bengal
- p.Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar
Chandra Sharma,
vMr . 7*ara C.; Ajay Sharma, Adv.
Mr. - - Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
IN WP(C) 498/2001
For Petitioner
(
For Respondent
Mr. Shimm o.
Singh. Adv.
B.S. Billowria, Adv.
Mr.
Garg, Adv.
Mr. D.K.
-n, Adv.
Ms. .Meenakshi Ar01?8
i, Adv.
"••. 'Sanish Slnshvi.
Das,
Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram CMr. Anis
Suhrawardy,adv.
made the fol lowing
the
Court
UPON hearing counsel 0► R 0 E R
d i smi ssed.
18 and 21 are
17,
12,
I.A.Nos. 11,
petitions
and writ
7
the
I-As.
List rest of
matters.
th. bottom Of .13=011.0000.
9,9,2002 Qt
(Suman^ Wadhwa)
on
(s.L.Goyal)
Court Master
Court Master
a
/
66
ft
ITEM No.54
Court No.
1
SUPREME
COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SECTION PIL
A/N MATTER
INDIA
Writ Petition(Civi 1) No.196/2001
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
Petitioner (e)
VERSUS
i
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Respondent (s)
( With appln.(s) for interim, relief and interim directions and
Office Report )
z-s
f*) z-x
4-
\
1
Date : 09/09/2002 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
ii
i.
For Petitioner (s)
I «
Mr. Col,in Gonsalves, Adv.
Dr, Yugug- Chaudhary
Chaudhary , Ms.
Ms . Sweta Kakkad,
<ama e
k"
i im a r &
0. Ms.
K?
Mr . P,V .P
Ramesh
Kumar
Aparna Bhat Advs.
For Respondent (s)
U 0 I
Ms , Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Mr Manish Singhvi, Adv.
Mr B V Balaram Das, Adv.
: ...z
F C I
I
Mr
M's
Soli Ja.Sorabjee, AG
Indra Sawhney, Adv.
State of Assam
Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv-. •
Ms, Asha G Nair, Adv. .
Mr. V K Sidharthan, Adv.
Advs. for Corporate Law Group, Advs.
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.
Ms ’. Jyoti Dutt, Adv.
tate of Andhra Pradesh
Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv.
• Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv .
Te of Andaman &
icobar, Dadra & Nagar
wgI i , Daman & Di u
id Lakshadweeep
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv .
M r . K . C Kaush i k , Adv.
M r . D S Mahra, Adv.
Ms . Siini ta Sharma., _• Adv .
■
.ate of Bihar
i
ate of Chhattisaarh
Mr/s Kumar Rajesh Singh & B B Singh, Advs.
■
67
I
L)T of Chandigarh
Mr, Muku1 Rohtagi, ASG.
M/s Rishi Maheshwari,’ R . K.. Maheshwar i , &
Ms? .Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, Advs.
(Deptt. of Food and
Supplies & Ors.)
Mr;
Mr.
Ms.
i
Ms .
Kai lash Vasdev, Sr.Adv.
K.C.Kaushik, Adv?
Sunita Sharma, Adv.
A Subhash ini, Adv.
State of Gujarat
Ms; Hemantika Wahi, Adv .
Ms'. Anu Sawhney,
Adv .
State of Haryana
Mr . J.P. Dhanda, Adv.
Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv.
Mr. Sunder Khatri, Adv.
State of Himachal
Pradesh
State of Jharkhand
J.
I
State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr
Naresh K Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Arup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr ’ Ashok Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Aslam Goni, Adv. Genl ,
Mr. An is Suhrawardy, Adv .
State of Kerala
Mr'., Ramesh Babu M R, Adv .
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr* Satya Mitra, Adv.
/l I;
State of Meghalaya
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
/i I'
State of Maharashtra
Mr.. .. S V Deshpande, Adv.
Mr"S S Shi nde , Adv .
Mr-. V . N. Raghupathy , Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K H Nob in Singh, Adv .
State of M.P.
Mh.. B.S. Banthia, Adv.
Mr; Satish K Agnihotri, Adv.
/
I1
I
1 1
' I
J
.State of Mizoram
State of Nagaland
I
Aishwarya Rao,
NCT Delhi
'(Deptt.of Education)
State of Goa
I
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,. Adv.
Ms. . Shomila Bakshi and Ms.
Advs .
I
State of Orissa
Ms. Hemantika
Hemanti ka Wahi,
Wahi , Adv.
Ms I Sumi ta Hazari ka, Adv.
Mr. Kai lash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
Mr.-S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms. V D Khanna, Adv.
I
■i
Mr. J . K . Das , Adv .
State of Punjab
i
L'- H
l
Mr. G Sivabalamurugan, Mr. Rajeev Sharma
and Mr. R S Suri, Advs.
i
I
68
I
Govt. of Pondicherry
Mr. V G Pragasam, Adv.
State of Rajasthan
Ms . Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
■State of Sikkim
Mr . Sonam P.Wangdi, Adv.Gen.
Mr, A Mariarputham, Adv
.
Advs. for M/s. Arputham,
Aruna & Co,,Advs.
State of Tripura
Mr. Gopal Singh, A^iv.
Mr
Mr.. Rahul Singh, Adv.
State of Tami1 Nadu
Ms . Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
State of Uttranchal
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh C.Kaushiwa, Adv.
State of u;P.
Mr. Ashok K Srivastava, Adv.
State of West Bengal
Mr.
Mr >
Mr..
Ms.
Bhaskar Gupta, Sr.Adv.
Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Ajay Sharma, Adv.
Neelam Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing learned; counsel the Court made the following
o R 0 E R
a
Adjourned.
List after one week.
Va
(C-IP.Walia)
Court Master
(S . L.Goya'l)
Court Master
- M'
i
6#
•"Court No.
ITEM-No.29
SECTION PH
A/N MATTER
1
COURT
OF
SUPREME
OF
PROCEEDINGS
RECORD
I N D I A
Writ Petition(Civi l.j No.196/2001
Peti
PEOPLE.’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
VERSUS
Respondent, (s)
UNIObjl OF INDIA & ORS.
interim relief and interim directionsif permi ssion
(With applns.(s) for
to file additional documents
documents and permission 1—
to subhiTt addl.
andi office report)
r ■
- ,6ate : 23/09/2002 This
Petition
was
called on for hearing today.
I
CORAM :
™6
HON’BLE
HON’BLE MR.
•HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Adv.
Ramesh Kumar and
Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Mr. P
Advs
.
Ms. Aparna Bhat,
For ..Petitioner (s)
7
For Respondent (s)
U 0 I
Ms.
^Mr.
• Mr.
$ Mr.
Meenakshi Arora, Adv .
Manish Singhvi, Adv.
Y P Mahajan, adv
cd. .
B V Balar.am Das, Adv.
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
F C I
State of Assam
Ms. Krishna Sarma and• Mr^, v K Si datharan,
Law Group, Advs.
Advs for Corporate
- .
Statd of Arunachal
Pradesh
Mr.iAnil Shrivastav,
Ms. Jyqtfi
-ivoti Dutt, Adv.
\*
State'of Andhra Pradesh
Adv.
Mr. T V Ratnarn, Adv .
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
UTs o'f Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
Havel i., Daman & Diu
and Lakshadweeep
Mr. K ,C Kaushik,, Adv.
.
A
Mr. D ,;S Mahra, Adv
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv .
State of Bihar
Mr. B B Singh, Adv.
J
State of Chhattisgarh
Mr. Prakash shrivastava, Adv .
. . . .2/~
70
i'
ind igarh
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms.
Advsji
Mr. K C Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. D S Mahra, Adv.
Goa
Ms.
Gujarat
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Me. Anu Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
Jaryana
'
A. Subhashini, Adv.
J1. P. Dhanda, Adv.
I Ms
Mr.!- Raj
Rani Dhanda, Adv.
^Mr. Sender Khatri,, Adv.
Mr . Bhagat Singh, Adv.
I
•
e.|
Himachal
Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Adv.
Jharkhand
Mr. Arup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. A'shok Mathur, Adv.
. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Jammu & Kashmir
Mr.i Anis’Suhrawardy, Adv .
Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv.
Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
M r. Satya Mitra, Adv.
f
Meghalaya
Maharashtra
Man i pur
Mr. *Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv .
Mr. U U Lalit, Adv.
T Mr. S S Shinde, Adv.
Mr. V N Raghupathy, Adv.
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
’ M. P.
Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.
Mr. T S Chowdhary, Adv.
Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Adv.
M izoram
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Anu Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
Nagaland
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms. V D Khanna, Adv.
Ori ssa
Mr. J.K. Das, Adv.
. Punjab
Mr. R S .Suri , Adv.
Pondicherry
Mr.
Pajasthan
V G Pragasam, Adv.
i'1
„ Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
Aish^/arya Rao,
'I
;tate of Sikkim
Mr A Mariarputham, Adv.
Anurag 0 Mathut ,
Aruna Mathur and Mr.
Ms.
Aruna & Co.,Advs.
Advs for M/s. Arputham,
late of Tripura
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Mahapatra, Adv .
Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv .
f Tamil Nadu
tate
State of Uttranchal
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv .
Mr. Mahesh C Kaushiwa, Adv .
State of U.P.
Mr. Ashok K Srivastava, Adv .
I; ‘
Adv .
■
Mr. Bhaskar P Gu
P~,
a^, Sr. Adv .
Sharma,
Mr. Tara Chandra
(--Neel
am
Sharma,
.Adv.
Ms. i I
Ms. Shall/ Bhasin, Adv.
‘ ,, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Maheshwari
.
r
1
K
Maheshwari
,
Mr. Rk Maheshwari, Adv
A
>• S*-ate of West Bengal
Educationa^ Deptt.
the Court made the fol 1 owing
UPON hearing counsel order
i-
?
2002 .
List on 4th October,
•H
(S.L. GOYAL)
COURT MASTER
i."
(D.P. WALIA)
COURT MASTER
1
I
-• ,j-r
I
t
i'
Court. No.
No. 2
SECTTON PTI
A/N MATTER
1
SUPREME
COURT
OF
RECORD OF PROCEEDTNGS
INDIA
•62^^
Writ. Pet. i t. i on (Ci vi 1 ) No.196/2001
Petitioner (s)
PEOPLE'S UNTON FOR CTVTL LTRERTTES
VERSUS
Respondent (s)
UNTON OF TNDTA & ORS.
' i directions and
(With applns.(s) for interim relief and‘ interim
additional
documents
and
office report)
permission to submit u
Date :
29/10/2002 This
Pet. i t. i on
was
called on for hearing today.
to
tnsa eopy
CORAM :
HON'RLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’RT.E MR. JUSTICE Y.K. SARHARWAL
HON’RLE MR. JUSTICE ARTJTT PASAYAT
Ccort
For Petitioner (s)
For Respondent (s)
U 0 I
Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General
Meenakshi Arora, Adv.
Manish Singhvi, Adv.
Y P Mahajan, adv.
Mr. B V Balaram Das, Adv.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr. Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General
Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
F C I
i
Adv. 'TOaBaBaar"
Mr. Col in Gonsalves,
Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Mr. P Ramesh Kumar and
Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advs.
State of Assam
State of Arunachal
Pradesh
State of Andhra Pradesh
Ms. Krishna Sarma, Mr. V K Sidatharan,
and Asha G Nair, Advs. for
Corporate Law Group, Advs.
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv.
Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv.
UTs of Andaman &
Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar
Haveli, Daman & Diu
and Lakshadweeep
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
State of Bihar
Mr. B B Singh, Adv.
o+-r>4-z->.
f-hhof t i cnarh
K C Kaushik, Adv.
D S Mahra, Adv.
Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr . Prakash Shrivastava. Adv.
73
UT of Chandigarh
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms.
Advs.
MCT Delhi
Mr. K C Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. D S Mahra, Adv.
State of Goa
Ms. A Subhashini, Adv.
State of Gujarat
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Anu Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv.
State of Haryana
Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv.
Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, Adv.
Mr. Sunder Khatri, Adv.
Mr. Mahendra Anand, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Adv.
Ms. Hema Sahu, Adv.
State of Himachal
Pradesh
Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Adv.
State of Jharkhand
State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. Arup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv .
State of Kerala
Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Adv .
State of Karnataka
Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.
State of Meghalaya
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
State of Maharashtra
Mr. S V Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. S S Shinde, Adv.
Mr. V N Raghupathy, Adv.
State of Manipur
Mr K H Nobin Singh, Adv.
State of M.P.
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.
Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Adv.
State of Mizoram
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Anu Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S K Shandilya, Adv.
Ms. V D Khanna, Adv.
State of Orissa
Mr. J.K. Das, Adv.
Mr
D
C
Ci iri
AHv
Ai shwarya Rao,
74
Pond i cherry
Mr . V G Pragasam, Adv.
Rajasthan
Dr. A M Si nghvi, Sr. Adv .
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv.
Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv.
Sikkim
Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv.
Ms.
Aruna Mathur and Mr.
Anurag D Mathur,
Advs. for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.,Advs.
Tripura
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
T ami 1 Nadu
Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
Uttranchal
Ms.
Mr.
Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
Mahesh C Kaushiwa, Adv.
U.P.
Mr. Ashok K Srivastava, Adv.
West Bengal
Mr. Bhaskar P Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.
jcational Deptt.
Ms.
Mr .
Mr.
Ms.
Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, Adv.
Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
R K Maheshwari, Adv.
Ritu Rastogi, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
On Sth May, 2002 , detailed directions were given by
thi s-
Court
with regard to the implementation
wh i ch
schemes
of
had been floated for giving relief
poor,
impoverished and the hungry.
N.C.
Saxena
Mr.
and
S.R.
various
to
the
In the said order
Dr .
Sankaran were
appoi nted
as
Commi ssioners
of the Court, i nter alia, for the purpose of
1ook i ng
any
into
grievance
grievance that may
resoluti on
persi st
after
the
order
procedure set out in the said
has been exhausted.
Pursuant
filed
the
to
the said order Dr.
N.C.
Saxena
has
In
the
first Report dated 12th October, 2002.
15
said
We need not go i nto
requirement in the State of Rajasthan.
this
food
Report, there is a reference with regard to the
considered
what requires to be
but
aspect
is
the
Commissioners in the
directions which are sought for by the
>*- -»4»
said Report.
and
A.M.
Gonsalves and Dr.
Col i n
in
General,
heard the learned Attorney
have
We
Mr.
furtherance
Singhvi and in
2002 ;
addition to our aforesaid order of 8th May,
we issue the following directions.
of
The Chief Secretaries/Administrators
di rested to
the States/Union Territories are
correspondences
the
to
prompt1y
respond
and
addressed to them by the Commi ss i oners
(a)
provide full information as required.
of
case
In
(b)
pers i stent
of
orders
defau1t
Court
this
compli ance
with
the
concerned
Chief
Secretari es/Admi ni strators
the
States/Union
shal 1
Terri tories
in
be
of
held
responsi ble.
The
(c)
are
given
permanently
November,
on
Chief
one
Secretar i es/Admi ni strators
last chance
display
the
to
translate
and
order
dated
28th
2O01 and 8th May, 2002 of this Court,
all the Gram Panchayats, school buildings and
□rice shops and give wide publicity on the
7C
Ii
i
All India Radio and Doordarshan.
This should be
complied with within eight weeks from today.
It
(d)
is clarified that the scope of
the
work
of
the
Commissioners appointed
by
th i s
Court
is
to
i nclude
monitoring
of
the
the
implementation of this Court’s orders as well as
and reporting to this Court
of
of
the
the
moni tori ng
the
i mplementati on
by the respondents
various welfare measures and schemes.
respective State Governments shall
(e)
The
appoi nt
Government
to
officials as Assistants
the Commissioners within eight weeks from today.
The
appointment
be made
sha 11
in
Terri tories
N.C.
Dr .
wi th
Assistants so appointed
The
■Saxena.
wi 11
such assistance to the Commissioners
as
Commissioners may require and help them
in
responsibility which
has
been
that
there
is
render
the
consu1 tati on
Chief
States/Union
of the
Secretaries/Admini strators
the
by
discharging
the
cast upon them.
In
(f)
order
to
ensure
of
the
Governmental
as well
as
the
effective
i mplementati on
Schemes,
the
States
Central
Government shall appoint one Nodal Officer each.
The
Assistants
Commissioners,
as
appointed
to
as
the
wel 1
help
the
Commiss i oners
...6/-
77
would
remain
the
said
Nodal
Officers for the purpose of ensuring
the
in constant touch with
due implementation of the Schemes.
(9)
The
Nodal Officers so appointed
provide
to
the Commissioners full
and
records
relevant
shal 1
to
accesss
relevant
prov i de
i nformation.
Whenever
(h)
the States/Union
Terri tories
have
a meeting in relation to food scarcity
it
will
be appropriate that the Commissioners
and
in
their absence the assistants
are
noti fied
to participate in the same.
It
(i)
Terri tories
or
is
the duty of
each
States/Union
to prevent deaths due to starvation
malnutrition.
reports
If the Commissioner
and it is established to the satisfaction of the
Court that starvation death has taken place, the
be justified in presuming
may
orders
have not been implemented and the
Secretaries/Administrators
Terri tori es
may
be
i ts
that
Court
Chief
of the States/ Union
held responsible
the
for
same.
We
reaffirm our earlier order dated Sth May,
I
f-
and
the parties to comply with the same,
di rect
2002
and,
...7/-
k
in
L
parti cular
Central
the
Government
shal 1
formu1 ate
the
scheme to extend the benefits of the Antyodhaya Anna Yojana
to the destitute section of the population.
Adequate
Commissioners
perform
the
by
avai1 able
to
the
enable
them
to
To await the next Report
of
the
be made
funds
shal 1
the
Union of India to
functions.
Commissioners, and to come up for further orders after four
Justice Y.K.
months before a Bench of which Hon’ble Mr.
Sabharwal is a Member.
Kaiyani.
(S.L. GOYAL)
COURT MASTER
r
79
SABOTAGING PbS
The High Level Committee goes dangerously astray
BY COLIN GONSALVES
Built up painstakingly over the last 3 decades is an incredible structure for the maintenance of
national food security. It rests on three pillars a) a reasonable price paid to farmers so that
production levels of cereals are kept up; (b) The FCI systems for large scale and efficient
procurement, storage and transportation of grain and (c) a public distribution system (PDS) for
the transfer of subsidised grain to the poor.
The IMF now says stop this subsidy. The High Level Committee falls in line. The committee
recommends:
•
Cutting the price paid to the farmers thus discouraging
cultivation of cereals
•
Cutting the food subsidy almost entirely by raising the PDS grain prices to almost
market prices; thus effectively dismantling the PDS.
procurement and the
Imports of cereals.
Of course lip service is paid to Food for Work (one page of the 200 page report) and
Antyayodhya Anna Yojana (1/2 page). And yes, self sufficiency!
Operating on two presumptions, both wrong, the High Level Committee on Long Term Grain
Policy has made recommendations which appear in favour of the poor in the short term but
which are against them in the long run. The first presumption is that the surplus stocks is the
FCI godowns are an indicator of excess procurement. The second is that the food subsidy
standing at 1% GDP must be reduced to 0.2%. Accordingly, it recommends that procurement
be discouraged by cutting minimum support price to farmers thereby reducing procurement by
12 million tonnes. Then it sugests that there be a uniform PDS price virtually at acquisition
cost, thus allowing the BPL prices to shoot upwards. The poor indeed have reason to be very
alarmed.
Ironically these suggestions have been made at a time when reports of deaths by starvation
have come in from Orissa, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere. Today there are 60
MT of grain in the godowns well above the 15 MT buffer.
Food for Work
Procurement every year is 40 MT. Offtake {excluding food for work) is 30 MT. Assuming
that the food for work programme will remain at their present low levels, the Committee
concludes that procurement must be reduced. This is a fatal error.
Food for work programme during British rule were governed by the Famine Codes. These
provided an extensive code of conduct for officials for the recognition of the onset of famines,
the immediate starting of FFW programmes available to all irrespective of income, and the
payment of subsistence amounts to those who cannot work. Studies show that the British were
able to control deaths by starvation by the effective implementation of these Codes.
80
Governments today, in contrast, appear to be worse than the British. Food for work
programmes began only after crops were decimated, cattle migrated and starvation deaths had
occurred. Moreover, the FFW programmes had ceilings leaving out large sections of the
population.
Over time these Codes came to be disregarded. As is usual in every Red Fort address to the
nation, Prime Ministers began to announce schemes. The Employment Assurance Scheme
(EAY) promised 100 day of FFW to all. Prime Minister Vajpayee then announced a new
Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY). Everyone assumed it was an improvement on
EAY. With the facts came the shock. It would provide on average of 10 days employment !
Rs. 5000 crores and 5MT grain was all government could spare.
Chandrababu Naidu demonstrated that 5MT was a pitiable amount for the country when he
managed to grab 3MT for Andhra alone. A genuine FFW implemented nation wide can easily
absorb 30 MT. Thus, procurement is not 10 MT in excess but about 20 MT less than required.
The piling up of stocks is therefore not because procurement is too high but because there is a
deliberate decision not to feed the poor. This brings us to the subsidy issue.
Subsidy
To argue that the subsidy should be reduced is to say that food security for the poor through
the PDS should be done away with. Subsidies were reduced in two ways; first by targetting
and second by the introduction of food stamps.
The High Level Committee concludes, what everyone has known for a decade that the shift
from universal to targeted PDS was a mistake. Targetting restricts the PDS benefits to persons
below a particular income level. Targetted Public Distribution System (TPDS ), has “excluded
a considerable part of the poor and undernourished population”. The classification into BPL
and APL was “seriously flawed”.
If the international standard for the definition of the poor i.e. a household that spends more
than one third of its income on food, is followed in India, 95% of all households would be
considered poor. If the Chinese standard of a food share of 60% is followed, then 70% of all
households would be considered poor. However, only 27% are considered falling within BPL.
This is why angry complaints are coming in from all over the country about the wrongful
exclusion of the poor from the BPL list. Tribals who say they eat meat or drink liquor are out.
Tiles on the roof or a fan in the room knock the family out of the list. The Planning
Commission’s definition of BPL as a family income less than of Rs. 20,000 p.a. is rarely
followed.
But was targetting a mere mistake or was it a deliberate attempt to sabotage the PDS? And is
the Committee using the failure of TPDS to dismantle the PDS system altogether in the guise
of reforming it?
PDS was sabotaged in five ways. First by targetting, then by increasing the APL and BPL
prices to such an extent that APL offtake collapsed and BPL offtake declined, thirdly by
relaxing Fair Average Quality Norms so that people were disgusted with the grain they
received, then by rendering uneconomical the running of ration shops save by the black
marketeering in grain, and finally, when the APL prices were marginally reduced, by not
communicating this to the public.
When targetting was introduced in India in 1997 the experiences of Mexico, Zambia, Jamaica,
Tunisia and Sri Lanka were well known. The targetted food stamps in Mexico were aimed at
cutting the food subsidy and led to an 80% decline of those receiving subsidized food. Sri
81
Lanka’s effective universal PDS was converted to one based on income in order to pander to
the IMF direction to cut food subsidies. As a result there was a 50% fall in participating
households and a significant number of low income groups were excluded from the food
stamps program. Food stamps replaced general price subsidies in Jamaica to reduce the
subsidy from 1% GNP to 0.23%. The real value of the food stamps fell until the cost of the
minimum food basket was 3 times the minimum wage. The poor were excluded. Similarly in
Tunisia there was a dramatic fall in the calorie and protein intake after subsidies came under
attack. And in Columbia targetting was the method by which food subsidies were done away
with.
The heart of the matter is money. India’s food subsidy at 1% GDP is not high by International
standards. Moreover 66% of this is worthless as it is storage cost. The hidden agenda of the
committee is to reduce this food subsidy to 0.2% i.e. to virtually do away with the subsidy for
the poor. To disguise this with an offer of price indexed linked coupons for the poor and cash
transfers to the state in lieu of price subsidies is laughable. State governments that cannot pay
the salary of their employees will put this cash into the general account. Coupons have failed
worldwide. In India counterfeiting will be an additional problem.
With the largest population of malnourished people in the world and with half the nation’s
women and children malnourished, ‘business as usual’ will not do. Drastic steps are called
for. India must consciously dedicate a part of its GDP towards subsidising food for the poor.
The subsidy must go up not down. In the present extreme situation 2% GDP is not excessive.
Jamaica in the 1970’s and Tunisia in the 80’s had these subsidy levels.
Once the decision is taken for a massive FFW programme the gap between procurement and
disbursement will disappear, the minimum support prices must be maintained to keep up the
level of procurement and benefit farmers, and the movement of grains from the godowns will
reduce that part of the food subsidy relating to storage (which is 66% of the total food
subsidy). A massive FFW programme will reduce hunger, provide employment and improve
rural infrastructure.
As the grain component of SGRY rises from 5 MT to 30 MT, so too will the cash component.
But this can be kept in check by enforcing the labour/ capital ratio on public works to 70/ 30
and by paying almost the entire wage in grain. Additional funds could be raised by the states
by the imposition of a levy as Maharashtra has done in the case of the Employment Guarantee
Act. All it needs is the will to act.
PDS Prices
In recommending that BPL and APL prices be increased close to acquisition cost (which is
today higher than the APL level) the Committee goes over the top. Surely it must understand
that the current BPL/ APL rates are too high for the poor to purchase grain.
Distribution is very low not because PDS is inherently unworkable, but because the poor are
too poor to buy the grain at the prices fixed. The BPL rate has to be fixed at the Antyayodya
rate level, and the APL rate brought down to the BPL level for there to be any significant
increase in offtake. Starvation does not just happen. It is caused by high PDS prices.
Contractors
Seeking to capitalise on the huge surpluses lying in FCI godowns, Reliance and others have
moved in. Privatising storage is the catch phrase. Once it is understood that the grain should
be distributed and not stored for years, then the FCI capacity ought to be sufficient. There is
no need for contractors. Initial calculations show that it should be cheaper to give the grain
away free rather than pay contractors!
82
Food rots in the FCI godowns not because the FCI is inefficient. FCI operations have in fact
been efficient given the sheer scale of the operations but its hands are tied and it has no say in
the release of grain for the poor. FCI has been critical in sustaining production incentives over
thirty years and in maintaining overall national food security.
Self Sufficiency
A salient feature of India’s cereal situation is that most states are deficit. Growth rates of
ceieals have decelerated. Non food grain yields have also declined. Interstate imbalances are
expected to widen.
Ci iti^al in sustaining the production of cereals is the system of procurement now in vogue and
the fair prices fixed for procurement. This has maintained overall national food security for 30
years.
It is essential to maintain cereal self-sufficiency because the devious policies of rich countries
and the highly volatile nature of International cereal prices makes the import of cereals a very
dangerous policy. Surplus production of a few advanced countries accounts for 4/5 of the
global trade in cereals. The US farm subsidy is expected to be about a 50 billion dollars a
year. Once the US grain exporters get a monopoly on the basis of highly subsidized grain
exports, prices will be pushed up leading to a grave crisis.
India has the world s largest malnourished population. Malnutrition among children is higher
than sub-Saharan Africa. Since cereals accounts for 60% of nutrient intake, decline in
production is a serious concern.
1 have heard Amartya Sen say on TV that procurement should be curtailed, market forces be
allowed to prevail and then prices will fall and the poor will get food cheap. Quite the
contiaiy. Prices may fall initially. Farmers will then move away from cereal productions.
Shortages will occur. Imports of highly subsidised wheat from the U.S. and elsewhere will
cause a further collapse of cereal production in India. Prices will then be pushed up by grain
exporting cartels leading to chaos and deprivation.
83
THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND WORK ACT1
An Act to make effective and immediate provision for the right to food and the right to work
by guaranteeing employment to all persons who volunteer to do unskilled manual work for
the making of durable assets for the benefit of the community and the economy.
•
Alarmed by the state of chronic hunger and unemployment in India.
•
Condemning starvation deaths as totally unacceptable.
•
Noticing that there is adequate production, procurement and reserves of grain.
•
Also Noticing that the poor in India are unable to buy grain unless it is heavily
subsidized.
•
Perusing the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein the
right to food and the right to work have been seen as inhering in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
•
Accepting and Adopting General Comment 12: The Right to Adequate Food made
under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, which India has ratified and which emphasises that state parties have a
principal obligation to immediately assure that everyone enjoys access to minimum
essential food to ensure freedom from hunger and to progressively realize the right to
adequate food.
•
Concluding therefore, that the State must organize its resources to provide for this
subsidy as a priority over all other expenditures.
•
Convinced that it is of paramount urgency to make effective provision for securing
the right to work laid down in Article 41 of the Constitution of India.
•
Also Convinced that drastic steps are necessary and that a 'business-as-usual'
approach will not do at all.
Determined that this Act should succeed to the fullest extent and under no
circumstances should be smothered or scuttled on account of administrative
inefficiency, paucity of funds, political controversy or apathy.
It is hereby enacted in this 54th Year of the Republic as follows:
CHAPTER-I
PRELIMINARY
1. Short title, extent and commencement
(i)
(ii)
This Act shall be called the Right to Food and Work Act 2003
It extends to the whole of India
1 DRAFT FOR DI5CU55ION PREPARED FOR THE RIGHT TO FOOD CAMPAIGN
By
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW NETWORK
84
It shall come into force on such date, as the Central Government shall, by
notification in the official gazette, appoint.
(iii)
2. Definitions:
(>)
Poverty Line: Shall be the cut-off defined in money terms, at which the
family spends on an average 1 /3rd of its income on food.
(ii)
Below Poverty Line (BPL): Is the cut-off in terms of family income as
notified by the Planning Commission of India from time to time on the basis
of poverty line.
(i>>)
Food : Is the minimum essential food which is sufficient, nutritionally
adequate and safe, to ensure freedom from hunger.
(iv)
Adequate Food :1s superior to food as defined in sub-clause (iii) above and is
food free from adverse substances, culturally acceptable and in quantity and
quality which will satisfy the nutritional and dietary needs of individuals.
(v)
Minimum Government Obligation: Is the obligation of the State to
immediate ensure that all persons receive food as defined in sub-clause (iii)
above irrespective of any resource or other constraint, and includes the
obligation to organize the financial and other resources of the State towards
this end in preference to any other purpose.
(vi)
Fair, Average Quality: Is reasonably quality grain that is nutritiously fresh,
safe and free from adverse substances.
(vii)
Starvation death: Is premature death caused directly or indirectly due to the
inability of the person concerned to obtain and consume food as defined in
Clause 2(iii) above.
CHAPTER - II
THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD
3. Right to Food:
All persons have the right to food. It is the minimum core obligation
of the state to immediately ensure that all persons who on account of
poverty, illness, disability, old age, or any other infirmity unable to
secure food, are immediately provided with food either without
conditions or with conditions consistent with the person’s economic
status.
4. Right to Adequate Food: It is the obligation of the State to move expeditiously to
achieve progressively the full realization of the right to adequate food.
Towards this end the state shall organize its resources in preference to
other expenditures as a priority.
CHAPTER - III
THE RIGHT TO WORK
5. The Right to Work :
Every person shall have
(a) the right to get guaranteed employment for doing unskilled
manual work and receive minimum wages.
85
(b) Such minimum wages shall be paid daily in grain and/ or
cash.
(c) The State government shall provide employment, to every
person seeking to work for a minimum specified period, within a
specified period, as far as possible in or near the residence of the
persons seeking work.
(d) The State government shall provide the implements, tools and
materials for the work to be done.
(e) In case of an injury or death arising out of and in the course of
employment, the worker shall be entitled to free and adequate
medical treatment including hospitalization, medicines and diet.
During the period required for recovery the worker shall be paid
full wages. In cases of death the workers shall be paid adequate
compensation by the State as shall be prescribed.
(f) All workers shall be given an attendance card in which the
attendance, work done and amount paid is recorded at the end of
each day.
CHAPTER-IV
THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (PDS)
6. The Public Distribution System:
a) It shall be the duty of the State to maintain and extend a
public distribution system for grains throughout the country.
b) The price of grains sold through the public distribution system
shall be fixed at such a level that it enables BPL families to
purchase the required quality of grains consistent with at least
the right to food.
Explanation: Inadequate off take of BPL grains shall be taken as
an indicator that the BPL prices are fixed at an inappropriate high
level.
c) The quality of grains shall be fair, average quality.
d) The State shall give priority to NGO's peoples organization,
dalit groups, womens organizations and the like in the running
of the PDS shops.
e) The State shall fix the remuneration for the running of PDS in
such a manner as to render it’s functioning viable.
f) The State shall ensure the efficient distribution of grains,
sugar, kerosene and other foods, articles and materials
through ration shops which shall be accessible to all persons
throughout the country.
86
g) Persons owning and/ or operating ration shops shall do so
strictly in accordance with the directions issued by
government from time to time. In particular they shall ensure
that diversion and/or misuse of grain does not take place,
ration shops are required to remain open strictly in accordance
with the schedule directed by government. Ration cards shall
at all times remain in the possession of the cardholder and
shall not be retained at the ration shop. Entries in the ration
card shall be made strictly in accordance with the directions
issued by the government. The rates charged for various
commodities shall be strictly in accordance with the directions
given by the government and shall be displayed on a notice
board prominently outside the shop.
7.
Destitutes:
a)
The State shall identify particularly vulnerable groups such as
the aged, the sick, the disabled, scheduled castes and tribes,
children and other poverty stricken and destitute sections and
place them in a special category entitled to receive grains
through the ration shops either free or at highly subsidized
rates fixed in such a manner as to enable these sections, even
with their low income levels, to purchase grain.
Explanation'. Inadequate off take of grain by these class of
persons shall be taken as an indicator that the prices of grain are
fixed at an inappropriate high level.
CHAPTER-V
MID-DAY MEALS
8. Mid-day Meals:
a) All primary school children in all state and state aided schools
shall receive free of charge a cooked mid-day meal consistent
with the right to food.
b) There shall be no discrimination against scheduled caste
persons in the mid-day meals and all children shall sit together
and consume such meals.
CHAPTER-VI
MANDATORY DUTIES
9. Duty to maintain grain stocks: It shall be the duty of the State to procure adequate
quantities of grain so as to effectively and wholly implement
the right to food and work.
10. Duty to sustain agricultural production: It shall be the duty of the State to sustain
agricultural production, maintain self-reliance and avoid the
import of grains.
11. Imposition of a Levy:
The State shall by imposition of a levy, raise such additional
resources as are necessary to implement this Act.
12.
Duty of Chief Secretaries, Administrators & Collectors: It shall be the principal
responsibility and duty of the Chief Secretary of the States,
the Administrator of the Union Territory and the Collectors of
the districts to ensure full implementation of this Act as well
as strict compliance with all policy, directions, guidelines of
Government and orders of courts to prevent hunger,
malnutrition and starvation deaths.
CHAPTER-VII
GRAM SABHA’S
13. Role of the Gram Sabha’s:
14. Starvation deaths:
It shall be the duty and prerogative of the Gram
Sabha:
(a)
to frame Food-For-Work priorities in their areas and
to identify the poor desirous of such work.
(b)
to monitor the implementation of the provisions of
this Act and the Food-For-Work programmes, inspect
the records, report instances of corruption and
prosecute the offenders through a representative of the
Gram Sabha.
The principal responsibility for ensuring that no starvation death
takes place is fixed on the Chief Secretary of the State and the
Collectors of the districts. Death by starvation once established
shall be deemed to be gross negligence, a major misconduct and
action taken in accordance with law.
CHAPTER- VIII
ENQUIRIES, PUNISHMENTS AND COMPENSATION
15. Enquiries :
a)
The Chief Justices of the High Courts shall nominate a district
judge (either serving or retired) in every district to entertain
complaints in respect of non-compliance with the provisions of this
Act or any policy, scheme or administrative instructions or the like in
respect of food security.
b)
Either suo-motu or on receiving a complaint, the District
Judge shall conduct an enquiry and make a report which shall be
made public. The enquiry and report shall be done within a period of
one month from the making of the complaint or the initiation of the
suo-motu inquiry.
c)
It shall be the duty of the judge making the enquiry to give
directions in respect of the non-compliance as above mentioned and
also directions in respect of reasonable compensation to be paid to the
affected persons, which directions shall be binding on the persons
concerned.
88
16. Disciplinary Action: On receipt of the findings of the inquiry, the authority concerned
shall, if the findings so justify, take disciplinary action in accordance
with law.
17. Compensation :
On the basis of the findings of the inquiry, the authorities concerned
shall, if the findings so justify, pay reasonable compensation to the
persons concerned and shall take immediate steps to comply with the
directions set out in the enquiry report.
CHAPTER-IX
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES
18.
Any person aggrieved or affected by non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, or
a representative of such people including an NGO, or a representative of the Gram
Sabha, are authorized to initiate and pursue criminal proceedings against any person or
legal entity in respect of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act.
19.
Where the complaint is made against a public servant acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duty the provisions of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. shall not
apply and it is specifically clarified that no sanction is necessary for the prosecution and
trial of the accused.
20.
Any person who contravenes any provisions of this Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend upto one year and a fine which may extend
upto Rs. 10,000/- or with both.
CHAPTER-X
MISCELLANEOUS
21.
The provisions of this Act shall prevail over any other provision in any law for the
time being in force and to that extent the provisions of any other Act, rule or
provision having the force of law shall stand overridden.
22.
The State shall have the power to make the rules to effectively implement the
provisions of this Act.
***
- Media
7639.pdf
Position: 1748 (5 views)