1. When this writ petition came up for hearing before us on May 8, 1981 we made an order giving various directions in order to ensure that the inmates of the Protective Home at Agra do not continue to live in inhuman and degrading conditions and that the right to live with dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the constitutions is made real and meaningful for them. We gave to the state Government which is running the home the entire period of vacation for carrying out these directions. Miss Srivastava, Superintendent of the Home, has field an affidavit before us getting out the action taken by the state Government with a view to complying with these directions.

2. Before we proceed to consider how far the directions made by have been complied with we should like to mention that Miss Srivastava has insinuated in paragraph 2 of her affidavit that the present petition has been field by Dr. Baxi and Mrs. Lokita Sarkar as a last resort to compel the Government. We are surprised that such a baseless insinuation should have been made by a responsible person like the Superintendent of the Home. The suggestions of a collusion between the landlord of the building on the one hand and Dr. Upendra Baxi and Mrs. Lotika Sarkars on the others, is most reprehensible and we unhesitatingly condemn it in the strongest terms. Dr. Upendra Baxi and Mrs. Lokita Sarkar have filed the petition as a "public interest" litigation with a view to ensuring to the inmates of the Home the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution and what they have stated in their petition and in the subsequent memoranda field by them is not only borne out by the report of Shri N. K. Sharma, chief Judicial Magistrate made on November 18, 1980 but also by the subsequent reports. We very much wish that such an institution had not been made by Miss Srivastava.

3. We are also surprised to learn from paragraph 3 of the affidavit of miss Srivastava that not a single women or girl has been sent to the Home under sub-section (2) of section 10 or sub- section (2) of section 17 or sub-section (2) of section 19 of the suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The Home has been established by the Government as a Protective Home under the and we fail to understand how is it that not a single women and girl has ever been sent to the Home under the provisions of the. We should like to know from the State Government as to how many Protective Homes established or licensed by the State Government under the provisions of the and the Uttar Pradesh suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") are there in the state of Uttar Pradesh and how many women or girls are sent to these Protective Homes under the provisions of the.

4. We should also like to know from the Additional District Magistrate (City), Agra as to what are the circumstance in which and the provisions of law under which he has been sending women and girls to the Home in Agra. We should be also like to know from the Additional District Magistrate (City), Agra as to how many women and girls he has been sent to the Home every year during the last five years and what are the circumstances in which he has so sent them. We many make it clear that we do not wish to suggest for a moment that no women or girls whose cases do not fall within sub-section(2) of section 10 or sub-section(2) of section 17 or sub-section (2) of section 19, but who are in distress for want of shelter over their head, should be sent to the Home. The Home may legitimately and whenever possible should, provide protection to women and girls who are helpless on account of want of shelter or who are in need of protection. But, what we wish to know is how, is it that no women or girls have so far been sent to the Home under the provisions of the and what are the circumstances in which women and girls have in fact been sent to the Home.

5. We may also emphasis that when a women and girls is admitted to the Home under the orders of the Additional district Magistrate (City), the Superintendent should comply with all the provisions of the Rules in regard to the treatment to be meted out to her, even though she may not have been admitted under the provisions of the. The provisions in the Rules such as Rules 8, 11, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, 34 and 35 in regard to the treatment to be meted out to a women or girls admitted to the Home, are provisions laying down humane conditions ensuring the right to live with human dignity and they must, therefore, be scrupulously followed by the Superintendent even in regard to women and girls admitted otherwise than under the provisions of the

6. We should like to know form Miss Srivastava in an affidavit to be filed by her whether she has scrupulously followed the provisions of the aforesaid Rules in regard to the inmates admitted to the Home. We should like miss Srivastava to produce at the next hearing of the writ petition the Inmates Register, in Form 6, which is required to be maintained under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8. The medical report which has been filed before us shows that there are a number of women and girls suffering from extrapulmonary TB. We should like to know from Miss Srivastava whether they were taken to the nearest hospital for admission as required by sub-rule(4) of Rule 8 and if they were so taken, then on what date or dates and whether a report to that effect was sent to the District Magistrate and to the nearest Magistrate in compliance with that sub-rule

7. We directed by our Order dated May 8, 1981 that the panel of doctors appointed by us should carry out medical check-up of inmates in the Home and make a report to us by May 31, 1981. Since the time granted by that Order was not adequate an applicant was made to the learned Vacation Judge for extension of time and on the application the learned Vacation judge extended the time for submission of the report up to July 20, 1981 and also directed that facilities be made available for transporting inmates to the S. N. Medical college, Agra for being examined by the panel of doctors appointed by us

8. Pursuant to these directions the inmates of the Home were taken to the S. N. Medical College, Agra and were examined by a panel of doctors and the report of medical check-up carried out by them has been placed before us. It appears from the report that the 19 inmates whose names were without in paragraph 17 of the memorandum of Dr. R. S. Sodhi dated April 21, 1981 and who had, according to the averments made in that memorandum become insane or were of deranged mind, were discharged by Miss Srivastava and were no longer in the Home. Significantly, barring three all the rest out of these 19 inmates were discharge by Miss Srivastava subsequent to the making of our first order dated April 16, 1981 where we took note of the fact that there were a number of inmates in the Home who had become insane or were in a deranged state of mind. According to the affidavit of Miss Srivastava, these 19 inmates were discharged because they wanted to be released and they made applications in writing for being discharged and the necessary orders for discharge were passed on the applications by the Additional District Magistrate (City)

9. Now, most of these inmates had been in the Home for over two years, some of them being in the Home since 1972, 1974 and it is difficult to understand how suddenly at or about the time making of our order dated April 16, 1981, these 19 inmates took it into their head to apply for being discharged and where in fact discharged. We cannot help entertaining an uneasy feeling that these 19 inmates came to be discharged from the Home merely in order to avoid an enquiry by this Court

10. We should like to know from the Additional District Magistrate(City) as to when he received the applications of these 19 inmates for discharge from Miss Srivastava and what enquiries he made for the purpose of satisfying himself as to whether circumstance existed which justified the discharge of these 19 inmates. Miss Srivastava has admitted in her affidavit that barring Poleena, Mona, and Meera who are presently undergoing treatment at a Mental Hospital the rest of the 16 inmates were "to some extent mentally retarded" and yet, despite this fact it is surprising that she should have obtained orders for discharging them and sent them out in the open world without any protection or care

11. We should like to know whether Miss Srivastava made any entry in regard to the health of these 19 inmates in the Inmates Register on the day of discharge. We do not know whether Miss Srivastava while discharging these 19 inmates(except perhaps Poleena, Mona and Meera), enquired of them as to where they proposal to go and it is indeed regrettable that they should not have been supplied with railway tickets as contemplated under sub-rule(4) of Rule 37, even though that rule may not be strictly applicable. If not under the rule, at least on humane grounds, Miss Srivastava should have enquired from these 19 inmates(other than Poleena, Mona and Meera) as to where they intended to go and whether they had any money for the railway ticket and their own subsistence and how they proposed to took after themselves. Miss Srivastava could have, if necessary, obtained the orders of the Additional District Magistrate(City) or the chief inspector for the purpose of supplying these 19 inmates with railway tickets at the time of discharge

12. We do not wish to place any blame on the shoulders of Miss Srivastava for following the practice of discharging from the Home after obtaining orders from the Additional District Magistrate (City) but so far as these 19 inmates are concerned, we are not at all happy that they should have been discharged soon after the making of our Order dated April 16, 1981 and we may point out that this order received wide publicity in the newspapers on April 17, 1981 and though most of them were mentally retarded they should have sent out into the open world without even a railway ticket or any money

13. Before we part with this topic, we should like to know from the Additional district Magistrate (City) whether it was pointed out to him in the applications for release forwarded by Miss Srivastava that Poleena, Mona and Meera were in mentally deranged state of mind needing treatment in the Mental Hospital and the remaining 16 inmates were mentally retarded and if so, what steps did he take in order to protect the interest of these 19 inmates. We may point out that according to the statements of Dr. Sodhi dated April 21, 1981 and July 5, 1981 these 19 inmates, whose names were mentioned in the list given to him and to Shri N. K. Sharma, chief Judicial Magistrate, on November 17, 1980, duly signed by the staff Nurse of the Home, were not just mentally retarded but were in a deranged state of mind. If this be true, the position assumes still more serious dimensions

14. We find that according to the report of Shri N. K. Sharma, chief judicial Magistrate, dated November 18, 1980 as also the statement of Dr. Sodhi in paragraph 4 of his memorandum dated July 5, 1981, there were five girls who were suffering from TB and their names are given in the statement of Dr. Sodhi. It is clear from the record that three out of these five inmates were discharged from the Home by Miss Srivastava after the making of our Order dated April 16, 1981

15. We should like to know from Miss Srivastava as to when the applications for discharging of these three inmates were made and we should also like the Additional District Magistrate (City) to produce before us at the next hearing of the writ petition the original applications made by these three inmates as also the orders made by him on these applications if they are available with him

16. We should further like to know from the Additional District Magistrate(city) as to what, in his opinion, were the circumstances which justified the making of the order of discharge in the case of these three inmates and whether, before making the order of discharge, he satisfied himself as to the necessity or propriety of discharging these three inmates

17. We should like to know from Miss Srivastava as to whether any of these five inmates (and we may for the sake of completeness give here the names, Chhoti Agiat, Kamla, Maigani, Suman and Sushila), were medically examined at the time of admission and discharge and whether they were at any time sent to the TB Hospital for the purpose of treatment and what treatment was given to them. We would require Miss Srivastava to produce before us at the next hearing of the writ petition the entire record relating to the admission and discharge of these five inmates as also the 19 inmates mentioned in the preceding paragraph along with the record showing the medical treatment given to these inmates. We should also like to know from Miss Srivastava as to whether she made any enquiry from these five inmates before discharging them as to where they were going and who was going to take care of them or did she just send them out in the open world without bothering to enquire as to what would be their fate, particularly when they were suffering from TB

18. We were told by Mr. R. K. Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the applications for discharge made by the above 19 mentally retarded inmates and five inmates suffering from TB as also the orders of discharge made on these applications formed part of the record of the Home which had been taken charge of by the District Judge. If this be correct, we should like the District Judge to send to this Court within 10 days from today the original applications for discharge as also the orders of discharge made on them

19. The Medical report submitted by the panel of doctors shows that out of 50 inmates of the Home examined by Dr. M. L. Mehrotra, Director of TB Demonstration Training Centre and Chest Institute, Agra, 21 were found to be suffering from TB, 14 were required to be kept under observation and in the case of eight, retesting is required to be carried out before any definite conclusion could be reached. The name of these 21 inmates who were found to suffer from extra-pulmonary tuberculosis are given in the report and the distressing fact which appears from the report is that most of these 21 inmates are very young some of them being even below the age of 18

20. We should like to know from Miss Srivastava as to whether any medical examination of these 21 inmates was held at the time when they were admitted into the Home and what medical treatment has been given to them during the period of their residence in the Home and since when such medical treatment is being to them and what is the result of such medical treatment

21. We would direct that these 21 inmates should be taken to the TB Hospital, Agra for treatment and they should either be hospitalised in the TB Hospital, Agra or kept at some sanatorium or other place where TB patients are kept, because their continued residence in the Home might constitute a cause of danger of infection to the other inmates. So far as the 14 inmates required to be kept under observation are concerned, we would direct that they should be kept under regular observation of the TB Demonstration Training Centre and Chest Institute, Agra, so that a proper and adequate programme of treatment can be persued in regard to them and they may be saved from the evil of this dreadful disease. Miss Srivastava is directed to submit a monthly report in regard to the conditions of these 21 and 14 inmates to the District Judge, Agra

22. The medical report also shows that Dr. G. G. Dhir, Incharge, V. D. and skin Diseases, S. N. Medical College, Agra examined the inmates in the Home for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of them was suffering from venereal or other skin diseases and the result of his examination discloses that out of 50 inmates examined by him, 11 are suffering from Secondary Syphilis Syphilis, 20 from Bacterial Vaginitis, one from Vaginal Venereal Warts, one from Chanoroid, two from Herpes Progenitalis, one from Scabics and four from suspected Syphilis. The names of these 40 inmates suffering from one or the other form of Sexually transmitted diseases are given in the report and the report shows that most of these inmates are young girls, some of them being less that 18 years of age. It is a most distressing state of affairs that so many young girls should have their lives blasted by sexually transmitted diseases

23. We should like to know from Miss Srivastava as to whether 40 inmates were found to suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at the time when they were admitted, because we presume that they must have been medically examined at the time when they were admitted into the Home. We should also like to know what medical treatment was given to these 40 inmates during the period of their residence in the Home and what steps were taken in order to provide a cure for their diseases. The report points out what is the medical treatment which must be given to these 40 inmates and we would direct the State Government as also the Superintendent of the Home to provide to these 40 inmates regularly the medical treatment prescribed in the report. The State Government as also the Superintendent of the Home will ensure that every three months these 40 inmates undergo pathological examination for the purpose of determining the extent of their disease and follow-up treatment is also made available to them as directed in the report made by Dr. G. G. Dhir. Miss Srivastava, Superintendent, will report to the District Judge every month the progress made in regard to the condition of these 40 inmates

24. It also appears from the medical report that 50 inmates of the Home were examined by Dr. R. K. Jain, Incharge of the Department of Psychiatry, S. N. Medical College, Agra for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of the inmates had psychiatric problem. The report shows that out of these 50 inmates who were examined by Dr. R. K. Jain, 10 were found to be suffering from severe mental retardation, two from profound mental retardation, four from mild mental retardation, two from inadequate personality, three from mild anxiety, eight from moderate mental retardation and four from borderline mental retardation. The names of these 33 inmates suffering from different degrees of mental retardation are given in the report. The report says that these 33 inmates who are found to be suffering from mental retardation in varying degrees were not medically examined at the time they were admitted into the Home. We should like to know from Miss Srivastava, the Superintendent of the Home, as to whether this is true. We should also like to know from Miss Srivastava as to whether any vocational or other training programmes are conducted in the Home for be should also like to know whether any provision for separate accommodation of these 33 mentally retarded persons is made available in the Home or they are accommodated along with other inmates

25. We would direct the state government and the Superintendent of the Home to consult Dr. R. K. Jain, Reader in Psychiatry, S. N. Medical College, Agra for the purpose of deciding which category of inmates as also which particular inmates as also which particular inmate should be transferred to some institute for mentally handicapped. We are told that there is one such institute in Okhla, New Delhi and another at Lucknow. It is not desirable that the mentally retarded inmates should live with normal inmates as it is likely to have adverse effect on both the categories. The Superintendent of the Home is directed to inform the District Judge, Agra from time to time as to the action recommended by Dr. R. K. Jain in regard to these 33 mentally retarded inmates and the programme of implementation of such recommendation. Whatever may be the costs, charges and expenses required to be incurred for the purpose of accommodating any one or more of these 33 mentally retarded persons in some institute for mentally handicapped must be borne by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, particularly since this year happens to be the International Year of the Disabled

26. Miss Srivastava has stated in paragraph 7 of her affidavit that Lalita has been transferred to the mental home despite the fact that "she was found only to be mentally retarded and not a fit case for admission in the asylum". Miss Srivastava has suggested in paragraph 7 that despite the "disinclination of the Mental Home to receive Lalita, The Mental Home was persuaded by the City Magistrate to admit her as patient" in view of the Order dated May 8, 1981 should have been interpreted by Miss Srivastava or additional district Magistrate, City as an order to transfer Lalita to the Mental condition as deserved to be admitted to the Mental Hospital. We had clearly stated in our Order dated May 8, 1981 that "Lalita shall be transferred provided the Mental Home is prepared to admit her ". If the Mental Home was not prepared to admit Lalita on the ground that she was no insane, but was only mentally retarded, as we do not see how our Order dated May 8, 1981, could be utilised for the purpose of forcing Lalita into the Mental Asylum. We therefore direct that Lalita be immediately removed to the Home and that she may be examined by Dr. R. K. Jain, Reader in Psychiatry, S. N. Medical College, Agra for proper diagnosis and further programme of treatment

27. That leaves only one direction given by us in our Order dated May 8, 1981 and that relates to putting up of two temporary latrines and temporary bathrooms. Miss Srivastava has stated in her affidavit that this direction has been carried out by the State government and in view of this statement made on oath by Miss Srivastava, nothing further remains to be done so far as this direction is concerned

28. Before we close, we must point out that we had directed the State Government by our Order dated May 8, 1981 to put forward a scheme for vocational training and rehabilitation of inmates of Protective Homes. This direction does not yet seem to have been carried out by the State Government. We would expect the State Government at the next hearing of the writ petition to state as to what steps are being taken by the State Government for the purpose of formulating and implementing a scheme for vocational training and rehabilitation of inmates of various Protective Homes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. This is a positive requirement of Rule 20 of the Rules

29. We are also not informed as to what steps have been taken by the State Government to reconstitute the Board of Visitors. It is surprising that though the term of the non-official members of the Board of visitors has, according to affidavit of Miss Srivastava, expired, the meeting of the Board of Visitors are still being held with the same members and the State Government does not seem to have taken any steps for making appointments of non/official members so as to regularise the Board of Visitors. We hope and trust that the necessary steps will be taken by the State Government in this behalf before next hearing of the writ petition

30. The writ petition will now stand adjourned to August 18, 1981

Record of Proceedings dated May 8, 1981 (Coram : P.N.Bhagwati and R.B. Misra, JJ.)

Upon hearing counsel the Court made the Following Order

Mr. R. K. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent wants time to file an affidavit of reply to the various averments made in the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the two occasions on which he visited the protective home and also in regard to the amendments made in the report of the District Judge as well as the Additional District Judge, Agra. We could, therefore, adjourn the hearing of the writ petition to July 20, 1981 but in the meanwhile there are certain emergent matters in respect of which directions are required to be given and we must, therefore, proceed to give necessary directions

1. It appears from the report of the District Additional District Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the 19 inmates whose particulars are set out in paragraph 17 of the memorandum of Dr. Sodhi and who were either insane or of damaged mind were discharged from the protective home between April 16, 1981 and April 27, 1981. It is very distressing that these 19 inmates who were obviously not in a position to take care of themselves should have been discharged from protective home and one would like to know whether they are discharged or evicted in accordance with the provisions of they are discharged or evicted in accordance with the provision of Rule 37 of the Rules framed under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act. Rule 37 requires that the State Government may at any time order any inmate of the protective home to be discharged either absolutely or on such conditions as they approve and would, therefore, seem that only when an appropriate order is made by the State Government that an inmate can be discharged from a protective home. One would, therefore, like to know from the State Government as to whether any order was made by the State Government or any other officer to whom this power might have been delegated for discharge of these 19 inmates. We would also like to know from the Superintendent, Protective Home, as to what was the reason for which these 19 inmates were discharged and to whose custody they were handed over on discharge

2. So far as Lalita is concerned we find that an order was made by the Additional District Magistrate on December 18, 1980 transferring her to the mental home because she was admitted as mentally retarded person and was not in proper mental condition but even though the order was made on December 18, 1980 she was not transferred to the mental home by the Superintendent because her mother was willing to take her home though she had financial difficulties in coming down to Agra for the purpose of taking her. It is rather unfortunate that Lalita should have remained in the protective home for a period of more than five months after the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Agra, even if Dr. Sodhi, who is appearing before us states that the Association for Social Health in India, was willing to provide necessary funds for the mother of Lalita to come down to Agra for the purpose of giving company to her daughter when she was in mental home

The provision of funds will ultimately abide the directions of this court at the time of final disposal of the writ petition as to who should ultimately bear the cost of such provisions. We would direct that pursuant to the order made by the District Magistrate, Agra on December 18, 1980 Lalita shall be transferred provided the mental home is prepared to admit her

We are informed that there are number of minor girls in the protective home. It is not at all desirable that minor girls between the ages of 7 and 18 should be allowed to continue to remain in the protective home in the company of hardened prostitutes or women who have been rescued from the brothels and women suffering diseases. Their proper place would be only in Childrens Homes and we would, therefore, direct the State Government immediately to ensure that minors are transferred to childrens Home in AgraBoth the reports of Chief Judicial Magistrate clearly show that there are two underground cellars with little ventilation where the inmates are housed. There can be not doubt that cellars are hardly a place where any human being should be required to stay day after day and month after month. The Chief Judicial Magistrate should visit the protective home on the second occasion pursuant to our order. As reported, there are three rooms along with verandah available for the purpose of housing the inmates and we would, therefore, require the Superintendent, protective Home to see that as far as possible no inmate is housed in the cellars except when the verandahs after putting the thick curtains are also made available along with three other rooms for the purpose of accommodating the inmates

We are informed that there is a Board of visitors which at present consists only of officials and there is no non-official representation on the same. This is not admitted on behalf of the petitioner but we would direct that since Rule 40, sub-rule (2) requires that there must be at least some non-official representation on the Board of Visitors, the State Government will take necessary steps for the purpose of ensuring non-official representation on the Board of Visitors. We would also like the present Board of Visitors to produce before us at the next bearing of the writ petition the minutes of the meetings held by them during the year 1980-1981 because sub-rule (5) of Rule 40 requires that the Board shall hold a formal meeting once in three months and we would like to know what where the proceedings of the meetings which must have been held pursuant to this sub-rule and what was the business transacted at these meetings. We have already appointed a panel of doctors for the purpose of carrying out medical check-up of the inmates of the protective home. It appears that some work has been done by the panel but they have not been able to complete the work assigned to them because our order constituting the panel did not reach them until after some time. We, therefore, extend the time for the panel to carry out the medical check-up of inmates and submit a report up to May 31, 1981. Since there may be difficulty in organising a meeting of the panel of doctor them it is necessary that there should be a convenor of the panel and we therefore appoint Dr. Sodhi as convenor of the panel. We would also direct the Superintendent of the Protective Home to cooperate with to produce the inmates for medical check-up in the medical college as and when required by the panel and also place at the disposal of the panel such records in regard to the medical check-up as may be required by themWhenever any inmate of the protective home is to be discharged, it shall be done in accordance with the provisions of Rule 37 and information of the intended discharge shall be given by the Superintendent of the Protective Home to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, at least five days in advance

The State Government will also put forward a scheme for vocational training and rehabilitation of inmates of the protective home and will also take whatever steps are necessary for the purpose of obtaining the consent of the landlord of the premises to the construction of at least two more latrines and two bathrooms because we find from both the reports of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that there is only one latrine for more than 15 inmates and there is no bathroom at all with the result that inmates have either to go without bath for days or they may have to take their bath in the open which is shocking state of affairs. We would also in the meanwhile direct the State Government to put up temporary bathrooms in order to enable the inmates to have a bath as also two temporary latrines and provide facilities for water by putting up water taps or drawing water from the water taps and carrying into the bathrooms and the latrines

Order dated October 12, 1981 (Coram : P.N. Bhagwati and V.B. Eradi, JJ)

1. The petitioners have preferred an application to this Court for certain directions. This application is not supported by an affidavit. An objection is raised by Mr. R. K. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the respondents that in the absence of an affidavit, the application is not maintainable. In view of this objection, the petitioners state than an affidavit in support of the averments made in the applications will be filed on or before October 15, 1981 and having regard to this statement made by petitioners we proceed to dispose of the application. The petitioners have averred in the application that 21 out of 50 inmates undergoing medical treatment under the Order of this Court dated July 31, 1981 have been discharged from the Agra Protective Home in breach of the terms of that Order and they have also expressed an apprehension, that more inmates are likely to be discharged in the near future in the same manner. When this application came up for hearing before us on October 1, 1981 Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Advocate then appearing for the respondents, fairly assured the Court that no more inmates will be discharged from the Agra Protective Home until October 12, 1981 when the application would be next taken up for hearing. The respondents have also not been able to file an affidavit in reply to this application setting out, what according to them is the correct position regarding the discharge of these 21 inmates. We would therefore like to give an opportunity to the respondents to file an affidavit stating whether in fact 21 inmates were discharged from the Agra Protective Home from and after the making our Order dated July 31, 1981 and if so, under what circumstances. We should also like to know whether the Superintendent of Agra Protective Home gave five days advance notice of the intended discharge was effected in accordance with Rule 37 as required by our order dated May 8, 1981. If five days advance notice was given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate about the intended discharge of any of the inmates, we should like to know from the Chief Judicial Magistrate whether he satisfied himself that there was sufficient justification for the discharged of the inmates and whether such discharge was being effected in accordance with Rule 37 and whether any care was taken to see if the discharged inmates had any alternative place to go and what would happen to them if they were sent out of the Agra Protective Home. The whole object of making the Order dated May 8, 1981 providing for giving five days advance notice to the Chief Judicial Magistrate was that the Chief Judicial Magistrate should be able to satisfy himself that the inmates in the Agra Protective Home were not being sent out without any justification and without complying the requirement of Rule 37 and taking care to see whether they had any alternative place where they could go. We would therefore require the Chief Judicial Magistrate to submit a report to the Court stating whether he satisfied himself in regard to the various matters relating to the discharge of those inmates from the Agra Protective Home with respect to whom five days advance notice was given to him by the Superintendent. The affidavit required by us shall be field on behalf of the respondents and the report called for by us shall be submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on or before October 29, 1981. In the meanwhile, we direct that no inmate from the Agra Protective Home shall be discharged without the prior permission of the Court

2. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Advocate for the respondents, also stated fairly before us on October 1, 1983 that if any inmates were discharged from the Agra Protective Home after July 31, 1981, the state Government will take all necessary steps to trace out the discharged inmates and try to bring them back to the Agra Protective Homes, if possible. We hope and trust that the necessary steps have been taken by the state Government in this behalf

3. The writ petition will come up for hearing on November 6, 1981

Order dated January 29, 1982 (Coram : P.N. Bhagwati and Baharul Islam, JJ.)

The petitioners have filed a written submission before this court on November 23, 1981 setting out various directions given by this court from time to time which do not appear to have been carried out or at least in respect of which no affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed stating that they have been carried out. We would therefore direct the respondents to file an affidavit in this court on or before February 8, 1982 setting out in detail the steps taken by them with a view to complying with the directions given by us on various dates from April 27, 1981 up to date. these directions are embodied in various orders made by us from time to time and the time has now come when we must have some sort of audit of the action taken by the respondents in pursuance of the directions given by us have been implemented or not. The respondents will file an affidavit or affidavits giving detailed answer parawise to the written submissions of the petitions and particularly with reference to paragraph 17 of the written submissions. Two copies of such affidavits will be supplied to the petitioners by the evening of February 12, 1982. If the respondents require any documents for the purpose of preparing their affidavits and such documents are lying in the custody of this Court, it will be open to the representatives of the respondents to take inspection of such documents. The writ petition will now come up for hearing on February 12, 1982 when the Court will consider the written submissions field by the petitioners as also the affidavit or affidavits field by the respondents and decide whether the affidavit or affidavits field by the respondents and decide whether the directions given by the Court in the past have been implemented by the respondents. The District Judge, Agra will visit the Protective Home immediately and submit detailed report to us in regard to the present position of the girls lodged in the Protective Home as also in regard to the conditions prevailing there. This report will be submitted by the District Judge to this Court on or before February 10, 1982 and when the report is submitted, one copy of the report shall be given to the petitioners and one copy to Mr. R. K. Bhatt learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. One copy of the directions and orders made by the Court from time to time may also be supplied to Dr. Sodhi who has really brought this matter before the Court through the petitionersOrder dated April 13, 1982 (Coram : P.N. Bhagwati and R.S.Pathak, JJ.)

1. We had given various directions by orders made by us in this writ petition from time to time and we find from the statement dated March 31, 1982 filed by Miss Tej Srivastava and the statement dated April 2, 1982 filed by Mr. S. S. L. Srivastava, Deputy Director, Harijan and Social Welfare, Agra that most of these directions have been carried out by the State Government. We are happy to note that the State Government has responded to the various directions given by us and taken steps with a view to improving the conditions of living of inmates of the Agra Protective Home so as to ensure them a life of basic human dignity. There are however three matters in respect of which funds have been sought by the Superintendent of the Agra Protective Home and one of them is provision of two flush latrines. It is absolutely necessary for the purpose of maintaining hygienic conditions that two flush latrines should be provided at the earliest and we hope and trust that the necessary funds will be immediately made available by the State Government so that two flush latrines may be constructed without any undue delay. The State Government has also been moved for the purpose of providing funds for installing a hand pump since water is not available for 24 hours. We have no doubt that the State Government will respond quickly and provide necessary funds for this purpose. We are glad to find that 19 mentally retarded inmates of the Agra Protective Home have been shifted to Avikasit Balkon Ka Vidyalaya, Lucknow (Mentally Retarded School, Lucknow) and three minor inmates have been moved to Rajkiya Balika Niketan, Almora. The State Government will supply a list containing the names of these 22 inmates to the Court before the next hearing of the writ petition containing and will also furnish a copy of the same to the petitioners

2. We must also express our deep sense of appreciation for the medical examination carried out and the medical facilities provided by the panel of doctors appointed by us also by the Principal of S. N. Medical College, Agra. They have responded generously to the request made by us and have carried out the work of medical examination and provision of medical facilities without charging any fees as a matter of public service. We are indeed thankful to them for the grace and courtesy shown by them. It has been our happy experience that whenever we have requested any medical examination of inmates of homes or prisoners, the medical profession has always extended its unstinted cooperation to the Court. We have no doubt that the medical profession will continue to extend its cooperation to us in the same way as it has been doing in the past

3. It appears from the record that the Board of Visitors has been constituted by the State Government. We would suggest to the State Government additionally the District Judge or an additional District Judge to be nominated by him may be appointed as a permanent invitee to the meetings of Board of Visitors so that the Board of Visitors may have the assistance of a judicial officer in the discharge of its functions. We would like the State Government to make this appointment within two months from today. The District Judge, Agra will also visit Protective Home once every month and take care to ensure that the various facilities which are now being provided by the State Government as set out in the Statements filed before us and which are required to be provided under the Rules are continued to be made available to the inmates. If the District Judge finds that any of these facilities are not provided or any of the directions given by us are not carried out, the District Judge will make a report to us. We would also direct the State Government to take necessary steps for the purpose of rehabilitation of the inmates of the Agra Protective Home and put forward a Scheme for such rehabilitation before the next hearing of the writ petition. The writ petition will stand adjourned to July 19, 1982.