HC Lists Series Of Steps To Fix Problems At One-Stop Centres
Delhi High Court
on Wednesday gave several directions to streamline their functioning.
From creating mass awareness through advertisements in newspapers to installing signboards at prominent locations near public buildings such as schools and hospitals, a bench of Chief Justice D K Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also appointed a "high-ranking" nodal officer of the Delhi govt to implement its directions on the matter.
It also directed the circulation of the standard operating procedure developed for handling child pregnancies and marriages among police personnel manning such centres.
Citing an affidavit filed by the Delhi govt in May outlining steps taken, HC put on record that it was "not satisfied with the steps and measures taken" and further said it was "constrained to observe that necessary steps and action which are required to be taken on behalf of the govt and Delhi police have not been taken."
You Can Also Check:
Delhi AQI
|
Weather in Delhi
|
Bank Holidays in Delhi
|
Public Holidays in Delhi
In a slew of directions, the court directed that signboards for creating awareness for OSCs "shall also be displayed in the vicinity of schools, hospitals, railway stations, bus stations, and other conspicuous places.
The said signboards and newspaper advertisements, apart from containing the necessary information, shall also contain the helpline number to be contacted in cases of emergency."
HC also took exception to the absence of counsellors in the OSCs and ordered the govt's Women and Child Development department to fill all vacancies in the OSCs, adding it may hire contractual employees if regular postings take time, clarifying that they will have no right to seek regularisation.
In its order, the court recorded the Centre's stand that it has released sufficient funds to the Delhi govt for the salaries of OSC workers and other purposes. HC's directions came after taking note of a newspaper report about the paucity of staffers to take care of the victims and other issues plaguing the OSCs, which in turn was flagged in a petition filed by NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan, represented by advocate Prabhsahay Kaur.
The Supreme Court in December 2018 asked the states and Union Territories to set up at least one OSC in every district of the country in the interest of children and women within one year from the passing of the verdict.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
'One of the worst orders': In a 1st, SC bars HC judge from hearing criminal cases
NEW DELHI: Enraged by what it termed "one of the worst and most erroneous orders we have come across", Supreme Court has pulled up Allahabad HC's Justice Prashant Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. Questioning Kumar's competence in deciding criminal cases, SC, in an unprecedented order, directed he shouldn't be given any criminal case for adjudication till he retires, and must be made to sit with a seasoned judge of the HC in a division bench. "The judge has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what's wrong with judiciary at the level of HC," Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said. SC: Passing of such absurd & erroneous orders unpardonable SC said at times "we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is unpardonable". It said the erroneous order was not an exception as Justice Kumar had passed similarly unpardonable ones over a period of time, which left them with no option but to take the extreme step. The case pertains to sale of goods and payment between two businessmen. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Are The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo The seller had delivered goods worth Rs 52.34 lakh out of which he was paid Rs 47.75 lakh. As the balance amount was not paid, he lodged a criminal case, leading to the other businessman to move HC for quashing the case. While allowing criminal proceedings in the case, a single bench of Justice Kumar justified his decision, saying that the complainant would not be in a position to pursue the civil litigation as it will take years and he will have to put more money to pursue the litigation. "To be more precise, it would seem like good money chasing bad money. If this court allows the matter to be referred to civil court on account of civil dispute between the parties, it would amount to travesty of justice and O.P. no.2 (complainant) would suffer irreparable loss and he might even not be in a position to emerge from the financial constraints to pursue the matter," he had said. Expressing shock over the stand taken by the judge the SC bench said, "Is it the understanding of the high court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? The observations recorded... are shocking. It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations... It was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. "It was expected of the HC to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the HC has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit," it said. The bench quashed the order and directed that the case be reconsidered by the HC but by another judge. "The chief justice of the high court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the judge concerned. The chief justice shall make the judge concerned sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge of the HC. We further direct that the judge concerned shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination," the apex court said.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
UP fine with Banke Bihari panel headed by ex-judge but says he must be 'Sanatani Hindu'
NEW DELHI: Uttar Pradesh govt Tuesday agreed with the Supreme Court's proposal for appointment of an interim committee headed by a retired high court judge for management of Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan till Allahabad HC decides the legality of the state's ordinance designed to take over the shrine to facilitate development of a temple corridor and provision of pilgrim facilities. Additional solicitor general K M Nataraj informed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, "UP has no objection to formation of an interim management committee headed by a retired HC judge, to be appointed by SC, which will manage administration of the temple, have access to funds of the temple, to start building the corridor. The state is committed to providing finances for the same, in partnership with the temple administration, as was done in the case of Kashi Vishwanath temple. " However, govt stressed, "The retired judge may be one who is a Sanatani Hindu belonging to Vaishnav sect, so that religious sentiments of devotees of Shri Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj are upheld." It proposed that the committee may include the Mathura DM; the SSP; the Munsif Mathura who has been managing the temple's affairs since July 2016 on HC orders; municipal commissioner Mathura; vice-chairman of Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority; principal secretary of Dharmarth Karya department and an official from ASI. The Goswamis, who claim hereditary control over management and rituals of the 'private' temple and have challenged validity of the ordinance, have found no place in the state-proposed committee. Their counsel Kapil Sibal told the bench that he would file objections to this, and SC gave him time till Friday. The state repudiated their claim over the temple and surrounding land. It said, "The land on which the temple is situated, as per revenue records, belongs to Govind Deo temple. .. The dire situation at temple requires immediate action to be taken to develop the area."
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Disrespecting Gandhi statue: Kerala high court quashes case against law student
Kochi: High court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a law student who was accused of disrespecting a statue of Mahatma Gandhi on the college campus by placing a pair of sunglasses and a Christmas wreath on it. The bench of Justice V G Arun, while allowing the student's petition to quash the case, observed that though the alleged act is undoubtedly immoral, it cannot be termed illegal in the absence of any law that prohibits or prescribes punishment for such conduct. According to prosecution, the incident happened at a law college in Aluva during preparations for Christmas celebrations in 2023. The student also allegedly commented that "Gandhi is long dead." The act was recorded on video and posted in student WhatsApp groups, which led to complaints being lodged with the college principal. Consequently, apart from the registration of a criminal case, the student was suspended from college for five days and fined Rs 5,000. Edathala police in Aluva registered a case against the student under IPC Sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation, with intent to cause riot) and 426 (punishment for mischief). Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Epson WorkForce Printers with PrecisionCore Epson Learn More Undo by Taboola by Taboola The student contended that neither any central legislation nor any state law prescribes punishment for defiling a statue of Mahatma Gandhi. To attract Section 153 IPC, the conduct must be not only wanton or malicious but also unlawful. Similarly, the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of mischief under Section 426 IPC, as the act did not fall within the statutory definition of mischief. Accepting the petitioner's arguments, HC observed that immoral acts, behaviours considered wrong or unethical according to societal norms or personal moral frameworks, do not necessarily amount to legal offences. The court noted that even the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, does not contain any provision prohibiting the defilement of images or statues of national leaders. HC, however, noted that it is the moral duty of every Indian citizen to respect the freedom fighters who played a crucial role in liberating the country from colonial rule. In its judgment, it quoted the American historian Will Durant on Mahatma Gandhi: "Not since Buddha has India so revered any man. Not since St Francis of Assisi has any life known to history been so marked by gentleness, disinterestedness, simplicity of soul and forgiveness of enemies. "
