Supreme Court - Daily Orders
X vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
WP(C) 327/18
1
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.1 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (Civil) No.327/2018
“X” Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for permission for non-disclosure of the identity
of petitioner as well as respondent, appropriate orders/directions
and permission to file synopsis and list of dates)
Date : 07-05-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR
Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv.
Ms. Aanchal Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOr
Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Raviraj Patil, Adv.
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK GUGLANI
Date: 2018.05.08
Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv.
18:16:23 IST
Reason: Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR
Mr. Devadatta Kamat, AAG
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
WP(C) 327/18
2
Mr. Javedur Rahman, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This Court on 11th April, 2018, had passed the following order:-
“Heard Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sunil Fernandes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Let a copy of this petition be served on Mr. B.V. Balram Das, learned counsel who will assist Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the Union of India and the respondent no. 7. A copy of the petition be also served on Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned AAG for the State of Karnataka. Four copies of the petition be also handed over with the addresses written thereon to Mr. Devadatt Kamat, so that he can effect service on respondent nos. 3 to 6 through the concerned Superintendent of Police or any equivalent authority.
Be it clarified, the names of the
petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 6 are not
being revealed, as the petitioner desires to
keep the identity secret. We have accepted the
said prayer.
Though many a prayer has been made in this petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, at the very outset, we clearly state that it shall be confined to entertaining the prayer as a writ of habeas corpus as far as the petitioner and grant of security to her is concerned.
Apart from the aforesaid aspects, no other contention or relief shall be entertained afterwards.
We have been apprised by Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is presently in Delhi. She may remain in Delhi.
WP(C) 327/18 3 Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG shall instruct the respondent no. 7 to give adequate protection to the petitioner during her stay in Delhi.
Let the matter be listed on 4.5.2018.” The petitioner, who has been named as “X” and identified by Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocate-on-Record appearing for the petitioner, is personally present in the Court. There is no dispute that she is a major. In view of the aforesaid, she is at liberty to proceed to any place where she desires.
Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the parents, the husband and the family members, states that none of the family members has ever created any obstruction on the path of “X” and will not do so in future.
In view of the aforesaid, we direct that “X” is at liberty to move to any place as per her choice and desire and there should not be any impediment from any quarters.
At this juncture, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that “X” may be allowed to take up a job and work. Needless to say, when she is a major, she is entitled to take up any job and pursue the same as she intends to do. WP(C) 327/18 4 Mr. Patil would submit that neither the parents, the husband nor any family members has remotely any intention to create any kind of harassment to the petitioner and, therefore, they do not have any reluctance to return all the necessary documents to the petitioner. The parents of the petitioner will hand over all the necessary documents relating to the petitioner to Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate-on- Record, within a week hence, who, in turn, shall hand over the same to Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner.
The State of Karnataka is directed to provide adequate security to the petitioner so that she can travel to Bangalore. If there will be any threat perception, she can make a representation to the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police of the area.
Needless to emphasize, when we have passed this order, the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), where the petitioner is presently staying, shall allow the petitioner to proceed to a place of her choice along with the security provided by the State of Karnataka.
We may hasten to add that the above directions are only relatable to the present habeas corpus petition and if any dispute arises with regard to any matrimonial or family matter, the same shall be adjudicated on their own merits. WP(C) 327/18 5 The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Assistant Registrar