TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court denies withdrawal of PIL on children's rights, orders continued proceedings under supervision.</h1> <h3>Sheela Barse Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request to withdraw the public interest litigation (PIL) concerning children's rights violations in custodial ... - Issues Involved:1. Leave to withdraw public interest litigation.2. Court's alleged dysfunctionality and delays.3. Applicant's ability to conduct proceedings with dignity.4. Right of a public-minded citizen to withdraw a public interest litigation.5. Continuation of litigation by another party or organization.6. Modification of previous court orders regarding the use of collected information.Detailed Analysis:1. Leave to Withdraw Public Interest Litigation:The applicant sought permission to withdraw the main public interest litigation (PIL) which highlighted gross violations of constitutional and statutory rights of children in custodial restraints. The applicant argued that she had the right to withdraw the proceedings as they were initiated by her voluntary action, and contended that the court could not refuse this leave. The court disagreed, emphasizing that the proceedings in a PIL transcend traditional forms and inhibitions, and the rights of those who bring the action must be subordinate to the interests of those for whose benefit the action is brought.2. Court's Alleged Dysfunctionality and Delays:The applicant claimed that the court had become 'dysfunctional' in addressing the gravity of children's rights violations and had failed to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously due to unjustified adjournments and procedural deficiencies. The court acknowledged the delays but highlighted the significant actions and directions issued from time to time, including orders to release detained children, provide legal assistance, and set up appropriate custodial facilities. The court emphasized that the nature of PILs involves ongoing supervision and implementation, which does not align with the concept of final disposal in traditional litigation.3. Applicant's Ability to Conduct Proceedings with Dignity:The applicant asserted that certain occurrences in court had cast a slur on her integrity and dignity, preventing her from conducting the proceedings with dignity. The court examined these claims and found them insubstantial. It noted that the applicant's interruptions during hearings and her direct communications with judges were deemed improper. The court emphasized that while litigants are entitled to present their cases with dignity, they must adhere to the court's decorum and procedures.4. Right of a Public-Minded Citizen to Withdraw a Public Interest Litigation:The applicant argued that she, representing other conscientious citizens, had the right to withdraw the PIL and that it could not be continued without her participation. The court rejected this argument, stating that recognizing such a right would render PILs vulnerable to personal ends, prejudicing the public interest. The court reiterated that the proceedings in a PIL are not comparable to private litigation, and the rights of those who initiate the proceedings are subordinate to the public interest.5. Continuation of Litigation by Another Party or Organization:The court directed that the proceedings be continued by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, with the aid and assistance of other permitted persons or agencies. This decision was based on the need to ensure the continuation of the important issues highlighted in the main petition, which served the cause of a large number of suffering children.6. Modification of Previous Court Orders Regarding the Use of Collected Information:The applicant sought modification of the court's orders forbidding her from using information collected during her visits to jails and custodial institutions. The court denied this request, emphasizing that the information was gathered for the purposes of the case and pursuant to its directions. The court maintained that the information could not be used during the pendency of the proceedings.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request to withdraw the PIL and directed that the proceedings continue under the supervision of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The court emphasized that the nature of PILs requires ongoing supervision and implementation, and the rights of those who bring such actions are subordinate to the public interest. The court also denied the applicant's request to use collected information for purposes other than the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
