SC notice to Centre, 11 states on PIL alleging caste-based discrimination in jails
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Centre and 11 states, including Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, on a PIL alleging that the prison manuals of these states encourage caste-based discrimination in jails.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took note of senior advocate S Muralidhar's submissions that the jail manuals of these 11 states discriminate in allocation of work inside their prisons and caste determines the places where inmates are lodged.
Certain de-notified tribes and habitual offenders are treated differently and discriminated against, the senior lawyer said.
The court asked Muralidhar to compile jail manuals from the states and listed the plea for hearing after four weeks.
Issuing notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and others, the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court in dealing with the issues raised in the PIL filed by Sukanya Shantha, a native of Kalyan in Maharashtra.
"The petitioner states that caste-based discrimination is there in barracks to the manual labour which is allotted and such discrimination among de-notified tribes and habitual offenders. The plea seeks repeal of offending provisions in state prison manuals. Issue notice to the Union and the state government...," the court ordered.
"I have not heard of discrimination on caste... the segregation is usually based on undertrial prisoners and the convicts," the solicitor general said.
Besides Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, the other states are Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Punjab, Odisha, Jharkhand, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Where is question of offence when there is consensual relationship? SC asks
New Delhi (PTI): Where is the question of an offence when a relationship is consensual? the Supreme Court on Monday asked a woman who had challenged an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had quashed an FIR against her former live-in partner in a case of alleged sexual assault on a false promise of marriage.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the woman lived together with the man and also had a child from him.
"Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship? They were living together and she also had a child from him and then there is no marriage and now, she says sexual assault? For 15 years they lived together," Justice Nagarathna remarked.
The woman's counsel told the court that she had lost her husband earlier and was introduced to the accused by her brother-in-law.
The court was also told that the accused had promised to marry her and sexually exploited her.
Justice Nagarathna then asked, "Why did she go and live with him before marriage?"
"She lived with him. She had a child from him. He walks out because there is no marriage bond. Legal bond is not there. He walks out, that is the risk in a live-in relationship. So once he walks out, it does not become a criminal offence," she said.
The woman's lawyer submitted that the accused was already married and had concealed this fact.
"See, if there was marriage, the question of her rights would have been better. She could have filed regarding bigamy. She could have filed for maintenance. She would have got those reliefs. Now since there is no marriage, they live together, this is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?" Justice Nagarathna said.
She suggested that the woman could pursue remedies, such as maintenance for the child, and asked the parties to go for mediation.
"Even if he goes to jail, what will she gain? We can think of some maintenance for the child. Child is now seven years (old). At least, some monetary compensation can be made for the child," Justice Nagarathna said.
The apex court issued a notice in the matter and asked the parties to explore if a settlement could be reached between the petitioner and the accused.
