Gujarat High Court
Lok Rakshak Seva Samiti vs Union Of India & Anr on 29 April, 2014
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT
WPPIL772014Cj2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 77 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Sd/-
J.B.PARDIWALA
==========================================
===============
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of
India, 1950 or any order made there under?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? No
==========================================
===============
LOK RAKSHAK SEVA SAMITI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
==========================================
===============
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH V SHAH, ADVOCATE with MR. ANKIT N MEHTA,
ADVOCATE for the petitioner.
MR PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent No. 2
==========================================
===============
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
Page 1 of 10
C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 29/04/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)
1. By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner has prayed for the following relief, quoted verbatim:
"12. That the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be please to:
(A). Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition and issue writ of mandamus or any other writ to direct the concern authority to established separate learned court for trial in the case of rape looking to the data published by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), New Delhi.
(B). Your Lordship may be pleased to call for the report from the concern authority on the basis of the data published by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), New Delhi."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of the rape cases, this Court should pass direction for establishing separate court for dealing with the rape cases like those special courts established as CBI Court, Family Court, Negotiable Instrument Court, Income Tax Tribunal, Sales Tax Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Revenue Tribunal, Railway Tribunal etc. According to the petitioner, the offence against the women is more Page 2 of 10 C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT serious than any other offence registered under the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, separate establishment is required to protect the dignity of women in the Society.
3. When the matter was moved before us, we directed the learned advocate for the petitioner to give an additional affidavit showing the data regarding pendency of rape cases in the various criminal courts of this State. The petitioner has, however, given the data relating to offences against women under section 363, 369, 371, 373 and also 354 of the Indian Penal Code during the period from 2008 to 2012 throughout India. The petitioner has also given State-wise pendency of rape cases in India from 2008 to 2012 and it appears that so far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the following is the year-wise chart:-
Year No. of rape cases 2008 374 2009 433 2010 408 2011 439 2012 473 _________________ Total 2127 ----------------------
4. This Court, however, of its own, directed the Registry to place the number of pending rape cases in the different Districts of this State both before the Sessions Courts and the Magistrate Courts. The Page 3 of 10 C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Registry has given such a list which is quoted below, showing pendency of the rape cases as on 1st April 2014:
"STATEMENT SHOWING THE INFORMATION REGARDING NUMBER OF RAPE CASES PENDING IN THE SESSIONS COURTS AND NUMBER OF RAPE CASES PENDING IN THE MAGISTERIAL COURTS WHICH ARE YET TO BE COMMITTED TO THE COURT OF SESSIONS IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT AS ON 01/04/2014 SR. NAME OF THE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTAL NO. DISTRICT/COURT RAPE CASES RAPE CASES PENDING IN THE PENDING IN SESSIONS THE COURTS MAGISTERIAL COURTS WHICH ARE YET TO BE COMMITTED TO THE COURT OF SESSIONS 1 AHMEDABAD (RURAL) *105 65 170 2 AMRELI 51 16 67 3 ANAND 81 19 100 4 BANASKANTHA 190 15 205 5 BHARUCH 22 26 48 6 BHAVNAGAR 118 39 157 7 DAHOD 127 26 153 8 GANDHINAGAR 84 7 91 9 JAMNAGAR 102 11 113 10 JUNAGADH 161 7 168 11 KACHCHH 92 12 104 12 KHEDA 47 26 73 13 MAHESANA 62 48 110 14 NARMADA 5 3 8 15 NAVSARI 43 6 49 16 PANCHMAHALS 43 7 50 17 PATAN 46 30 76 18 PORBANDAR *15 *8 23 19 RAJKOT 166 36 202 20 SABARKANTHA 87 11 98 21 SURAT 237 141 378 Page 4 of 10 C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT 22 SURENDRANAGAR 90 5 95 23 TAPI 3 2 5 24 VADODARA 117 78 195 25 VALSAD 49 5 54 26 CITY CIVIL COURT, 261 0 261 A'BAD 27 METRO. MAGI.COURT, 0 367 367 A'BAD TOTAL 2404 1016 3420 * IN A, BAD (RURA) DISTRICT, OUT OF 105 CASES, 8 CASES OF IPC 376 WITH POSCO ACT.
* IN PORBANDAR DISTRICT, OUT OF 15 CASES, 6 CASES OF IPC 376 WITH POSCO ACT IN APPELLATE COURTS AND 8 CASES OF IPC 376 WITH POSCO IN SUBORDINATE COURT."
5. State Wise Rape Cases in India (2008-2009-2010-2011-2012) disclosed by the petitioner is reproduced below:
Sr. State 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
No.
1 Madhya 2937 2998 3135 3406 3425 15901
Pradesh
2 West Bengal 2263 2336 2311 2363 2046 11319
3 Uttar Pradesh 1871 1759 1563 2042 1963 9198
4 Rajasthan 1355 1519 1571 1800 2049 8294
5 Assam 1438 1631 1721 1700 1716 8206
6 Maharashtra 1558 1483 1599 1701 1389 8180
7 Andhra 1257 1118 1362 1442 1341 6520
Pradesh
8 Odisha 1113 1023 1025 1112 1458 5731
9 Chhatisgarh 978 976 1012 1053 1034 5053
10 Bihar 1302 929 795 934 927 4887
11 Kerala 568 568 634 1132 1019 3921
12 Jharkhand 791 719 773 784 812 3879
13 Haryana 631 603 720 733 668 3355
14 Tamil Nadu 573 596 686 677 737 3269
15 Karnataka 446 509 586 636 621 2798
Page 5 of 10
C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT
16 Punjab 517 511 546 479 680 2733
17 Gujarat 374 433 408 439 473 2127
18 Jammu & 219 237 245 277 303 1281
Kashmir
19 Tripura 204 190 238 205 229 1066
20 Himachal 157 183 160 168 183 851
Pradesh
21 Meghalaya 88 112 149 130 164 643
22 Uttarakhand 87 111 121 129 148 596
23 Mizoram 77 83 92 77 103 432
24 Arunachal 42 59 47 42 46 236
Pradesh
25 Manipur 38 31 34 53 63 219
26 Goa 30 47 36 29 55 197
27 Sikkim 20 18 18 16 34 106
28 Nagaland 19 22 16 23 21 101
Total 20953 20804 2160 23582 24157 111099
3
5.1 UT Wise Rape Cases in India (2008-2009-2010-2011-2012)
1 Delhi 466 469 507 572 706 2720
2 Chandigarh 20 29 31 27 27 134
3 A & N Islands 12 18 24 13 12 79
4 Puduchery 8 1 3 7 13 32
5 D & N Haveli 6 4 3 4 3 20
6 Daman & Diu 0 1 1 1 5 8
7 Lakshadweep 2 1 0 0 0 3
Total 514 523 569 624 766 2996
Final Total 21467 21327 22172 24206 24923 114095
(State & UT)
6. The year wise chart in relation to rape cases indicated above shows that insofar as the Sessions cases are concerned, the total number of pending rape cases is 2404, and if we divide it by 27, i.e. Page 6 of 10 C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the total number of judicial district, the average pendency comes to 89 in each district. Similarly, so far as the courts of JMFC are concerned, the total number of pending rape cases is 1016, and dividing it by 27, the average pendency is 37.
7. According to the existing law of the land, the rape cases are required to be tried and decided in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure which does not provide for creation of a specific court of judicial magistrate or sessions court for dealing with the rape cases exclusively. The creation of separate court as indicated in the application like CBI Court, Family Court, Negotiable Instrument Court, Income Tax Tribunal, Sales Tax Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Revenue Tribunal, Railway Tribunal etc. are the outcome of Special Legislation providing creation of such court. Thus, it is the function of the legislature to enact such law. In exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this court cannot pass any direction upon the legislature to enact any law creating separate courts for dealing with exclusively the rape cases. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of the Supreme Court welfare Association vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 334:
"There can be no doubt that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority Page 7 of 10 C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT exercises a legislative power by way of subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such 'executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which he has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority."
8. On consideration of the above position of law, we thus find that the prayers made in this application are not tenable in the eye of law.
9. We, of our own, however, also directed the Registry to place before us the decision taken by this Court in the past regarding special efforts for quick disposal of cases relating to offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also relating to offence under Section 302/306 of the Indian Penal Code (relating to women). The Registry has drawn our attention to the fact that pursuant to the decision of the standing committee of this court a committee of three Hon'ble Judges has been constituted for looking into the aspect of quick disposal of cases against the women and the said committee has already given the following interim report which has been directed to be implemented subject to the final report of the committee:
"............To ensure that the cases relating to the offences against the women are Fast Tracked and taken up for hearing on priority basis, the Committee is also of the opinion that the concerned Courts may be directed to see to it that all those cases are ready for trial inclusive of committal of cases to the concerned Page 8 of 10 C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Court if the cases are Sessions Triable; to frame the charge in all those cases and with respect to the cases which are pending due to non service of the summons and warrants either upon accused or the witnesses, the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate may be directed to impress upon the concerned police authority / department to see that the summons / warrants inclusive of witness summons are served at the earliest by given them top priority and they shall have periodical monthly meeting with the concerned police authorities inclusive of Dy. Sp/ Commissionerate office and to effectively monitor the same.
Considering the number of cases of offences against the women pending in the subordinate Courts and number of Court at present available inclusive of lady Judicial Officers and to ensure that cases relating to the offences against the women are Fast Tracked and taken up for hearing on priority basis, the Committee is of the opinion that per 100 Sessions triable cases, one Court of Sessions may be earmarked as Fast Track Court to exclusively deal with the cases of the offences against women and per 400 Magistrate triable cases, one Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class may be earmarked as Fast Track Court to exclusively deal with the cases of the offences against the women. Considering the aforesaid ratio and the pendency of the cases relating to the offences against the women and to see that cases / trials for the offences against the women are Fast Tracked, it is suggested that in all 43 Court of Sessions in various Districts (to deal with the Sessions triable cases) and 132 Judicial Magistrate First Class Courts (to deal with Magistrate triable case) are required to be earmarked as Fast Track Court to exclusively deal with the cases of the offences against the women..........."
10. Thus, this court in exercise of power of superintendence has Page 9 of 10 C/WPPIL/77/2014 CAV JUDGMENT already passed direction upon the subordinate courts to expedite the matters relating to offence against the women but the prayer of the petitioner for creation of separate court for dealing with the rape cases can only be granted by appropriate legislation.
11. We, thus, find that the prayer made by the petitioner is not maintainable and accordingly, we dismiss the same.
Sd/-
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) Sd/-
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) mathew Page 10 of 10