Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (1.60 seconds)
Documents citing Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 April, 2011

Mukeshbhai Manharlal Khakhar vs State Of Gujarat on 12 June, 2020

5. We have also in last order emphasised on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Bachpan Bacho Andolan vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 39, where the Court has essentially emphasised on the right of the children and need to protect them from being trafficked in inhuman way. Also, bearing in mind the plight of those victims who no longer are children, but have been the victim of such crimes, this investigation shall continue.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Mukeshbhai Manharlal Khakhar vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2020

5. We have also in last order emphasised on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Bachpan Bacho Andolan vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 39, where the Court has essentially emphasised on the right of the children and need to protect them from being trafficked in inhuman way. Also, bearing in mind the plight of those victims who no longer are children, but have been the victim of such crimes, this investigation shall continue.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

S.Gopi Krishnan vs The Director on 26 July, 2019

Inviting the attention of this Court to the communication, dated 3rd March, 2015 of the Under Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, New Delhi, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, submitted that the Ministry has already formed a National Portal, under the project name, “Track Child” under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS), and based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.75 of 2012, dated 10.05.2013 [Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India], wherein guidelines have been issued, Ministry for Women and Child Development, New Delhi, has taken steps for effective computerized network, between the Central Project Support Union (CPSU), State Child Protection Society/Units, District Child Protection Units (DCPU), Child Care Instructions (CCIs), all Police Stations, Chief Welfare Committee Members (CWCs) and all Juvenile Justice Board Members (JJBs), etc., so as to facilitate quick and early restoration of the missing children to their families. He also submitted that the website link should also be made known to the public at large. He further submitted that Track Child Nodal Officers have been appointed in States/Union Territories.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Vishnu @ Bishnu Nirola vs (I) The State on 20 February, 2023

6. Record reveals that notice of this appeal was also issued to respondent no.2 i.e. Child Welfare Committee, South whereupon reply was received on their behalf on 08.01.2021. As per said reply, the impugned order was passed after considering all the relevant facts and in pursuance to powers conferred on the Child Welfare Committee by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(Crl.) No. 619/2002 and W.P(Crl.) No. 879/2007 titled "Bachpan Bachao Andolan and Ors Vs. Union of India". It was also mentioned therein that correct facts were not brought to the notice of Ld. ASJ during the hearing of interim bail application moved on behalf of appellant. It was mentioned that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayakumar Nat & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 4 September, 2015

10. We are appalled to find that these committees are also adjourning the matters of these rescued children as a matter of routine. It was too shocking to find that when for the first time the case of rescued child Suraj came up before CWC Kalkaji, it adjourned the same for a few days for placing the matter before CWC Lajpat Nagar due to lack of its jurisdiction. Again to our surprise, no efforts were made either by the CWC Kalkaji and CWC Lajpat Nagar to restore the custody of the child to the mother who had been running from pillar to post to meet her child and to know about his well being. Is this the way these stakeholders are functioning in the discharge of their assigned duties under various statutes in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of 'Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India & Ors. 2015(2) Scale 227 and Court on its own motion (supra). In fact all these officers who failed to carry out the directives given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Court on its own motion (supra) have committed contempt of Court orders.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 March, 2018

On the one 33 Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 34 R.D. Upadhyay versus State of A.P. (2007) 15 SCC 337 35 Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. UOI (2011) 5 SCC 1 36 Union for Civil Liberties versus UOI (2010)5 SCC 318 37 People’s Union for Civil Liberties versus UOI (2004) 12 SCC 104 and (2010) 15 SCC 57 38 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity versus State of W.B. (1996) 4 SCC 37 39Sunil Batra versus Delhi Admn.
Supreme Court of India Cites 106 - Cited by 477 - A K Goel - Full Document

Seema Roy vs State (Govt Of Nct Delhi) & Anr on 4 September, 2015

10. We are appalled to find that these committees are also adjourning the matters of these rescued children as a matter of routine. It was too shocking to find that when for the first time the case of rescued child Suraj came up before CWC Kalkaji, it adjourned the same for a few days for placing the matter before CWC Lajpat Nagar due to lack of its jurisdiction. Again to our surprise, no efforts were made either by the CWC Kalkaji and CWC Lajpat Nagar to restore the custody of the child to the mother who had been running from pillar to post to meet her child and to know about his well being. Is this the way these stakeholders are functioning in the discharge of their assigned duties under various statutes in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of 'Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India & Ors. 2015(2) Scale 227 and Court on its own motion (supra). In fact all these officers who failed to carry out the directives given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Court on its own motion (supra) have committed contempt of Court orders.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons ... vs State Of Assam on 25 September, 2018

In Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Child’s Dengue Death, (2016) 10 SCC 709, In Re: Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2002) 3 SCC 31, In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business and Financial News, (2014) 2 Signature Not Verified SCC 786 2 Digitally signed by Writ Petitions filed: SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2018.09.25 17:26:35 IST MC Mehta v. Union of India [Oleum Gas Leak], (1986) 2 SCC 176, Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of Reason: India, (1989) 4 SCC 286, Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1 3 Letters Petitions:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Society For Enlightenment And ... vs Union Of India on 18 October, 2024

194. The duty of the State corresponds to the right to development of a child which is tracible to Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 15. The right comprehends the ability of a child to exercise free speech, express authenticity and live a life of liberty and dignity. It falls on the State to ensure that children are informed of 269 Unni Krishnan JP v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645; Society For Unaided Private Schools Of Rajasthan v. Union Of India (2012) 6 SCC 1; Avinash Mehrotra v. Union Of India, 2009 INSC 498; Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1; Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of M.P., (2013) 15 SCC 677; Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433. 270 (1983) AIR 378.
Supreme Court of India Cites 128 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Pinki vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 April, 2025

In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors., reported (2014) 16 SCC 616, this Court dealt with issues regarding the manner in which a complaint about a missing child was being handled by the local police station. The Court heard the National Human Rights Commission and the National Legal Services Authority and issued directions with a view to Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4658 of 2025 Page 25 of 93 ensuring that cases of missing children are presumed to be taken as cases of abduction or trafficking unless the investigation shows otherwise. Some of the key directions issued by this Court which are relevant for the present case are:
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next