SHEELA BARSE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Title of the Case:  SHEELA BARSE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: –               1983 (SC) 378.

Case No.: –             WRIT PETITION (Crl) NO. 1053- 1054 OF 1982

Court: –                  Supreme Court of India

Appellant:             SHEELA BARSE

Respondent: –        STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Bench: –               Justice Rangnath Misra, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice Amrendra Nath,                Justice R.S. Sen and Justice M.M Dutt.

Date of Judgement: – 15/02/1983

Facts: –

• According to the petitioner, a Journalist, in the letter she wrote to this court, five out of the fifteen female inmates she spoke with at the Bombay Central Jail claimed that the police had assaulted them there, and two of them specifically claimed that they had been tortured and assaulted.

• Devamma and Pushpa Paeen were the two major female inmates; they were reportedly abused and tortured while being held in a police cell.
• The court recognised the journalist’s letter as a Writ Petition and served notice on the state of Maharashtra, as well as law enforcement officers such the Superintendent of the Bombay Central Jail and Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra. However, no affidavit was submitted on that day in response to the court’s proceedings outlining the reasons the petition should not be granted.
• The Director (A.R. Desai) of the College of Social Work in Bombay, Nirmala Niketan, was instructed to speak with the female convicts alone in order to determine whether the claims made to the petitioner were true or not.
• Dr. Desai was given the go-ahead to undertake the assigned work with all necessary resources provided by the State Government and the Inspector General of Prisons.
• She provided a socio-legal study that was fascinating. It was mandated that the Inspector General of Prisons in Maharashtra examine the report and take any additional required steps to ensure the protection and welfare of female detainees.
• Our constitution gives us ARTICLE 39 A, one of the basic principles of state policy, which specifies that the state must offer free legal assistance to its citizens in order to ensure that everyone has access to justice. Not only does ARTICLE 21 guarantee the right to life and liberty, it also guarantees equality before the law under ARTICLE 14.
• This letter originally focused on the needs of women, but as Dr. Desai’s investigation brought to light, it became clear that two foreign nationals had been defrauded by an Indian lawyer who had taken their property Such as Jewellery under the pretending that he was keeping it for fees.

Issues: –

Regarding the concept of Custodial Violence/ assaults of Woman Prisoner in Prison, by a Police Officer, Did the Indian constitutional courts declare a legal aid to the poor Prisoner’s for infringement of fundamental rights when exercising their authority under Articles 39A, 21,32 and 14 of the Indian constitution.

Contention of Appellant: –

The petitioner claimed that it was a case of custodial Violence of Woman Prisoners So, Legal help for the underprivileged its significance is outlined and instructions are given to jail staff and police on how to provide legal assistance to underprivileged inmates and must considered as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. A constitutional requirement stipulated not only by Article 39A but also by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution requires legal representation for a poor or impoverished accused who has been arrested and is in danger of losing his life or his personal freedom.

Contention of Respondent: –

Maharashtra has demanded that they provide justification for rejecting the writ petition. This Court postponed the hearing on the writ petition so that the State of Maharashtra and other parties could file an affidavit in response to the allegations made in the petitioner’s letter because it appears that on the returnable date of the show cause notice no affidavit was filed on behalf of any of the parties to whom show cause notice was issued.

Judgement: –

BHAGWATI gave the court’s judgement. The court ruled that because it is required under Articles 14, 19, and 39A of the Indian Constitution, impoverished people who are being detained should be given legal help. The Court instructed the social workers to report on any mistreatment of female detainees in the jails. In order to establish “legal aid organisations” at the High Court and District levels, the Supreme Court issues a notification to the Inspector of Jails.

In addition, the Court instructed the Inspector General of the Maharashtra Jail to issue a notice to all the Superintendents of Maharashtra regarding the prisoners:

Female police officers should be the sole ones in charge of guarding the separate prisons for female inmates. Female police should be always present while questioning female inmates. The reason for the arrest should be explained, as well as the availability of bail. According to Section 160(1) of the CrPC, only female police officers are permitted to check a female suspect. After dusk and before dawn, no arrests of female detainees are permitted.

In addition, the court ordered the District Legal Aid Committee to designate a couple of district court-practicing attorneys to periodically visit jails to check on whether the orders issued by the high court and the supreme court are being obeyed. Male and female convicts were to be housed separately, and female constables were to watch over the female cells. The Maharashtra administration frightened the court by claiming that there were already 3 female convicts reserved in lockups and that they would expand that number to 5. The court suggested 4 or 5 lockups for women. And Interrogation of females must be done by only female officers.

Conclusion: –

At any Cost the democracy must be maintained and protected. Awareness of Fundamental Right is Very important for the betterment of societies. Justice is Single Step away from raising a voice in courts. An effort of the Female Petitioner is Outstanding and due to this now Female Prisoners are in the Safe hands that is the Judgement given by the courts. Various Rules and Regulation were given in this Judgement’s for better safety for all Prisoners including both male as well as Female. In addition, the court ordered the District Legal Aid Committee to designate a couple of district court-practicing attorneys to periodically visit jails to check on whether the orders issued by the high court and the supreme court are being obeyed.