Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Decided
- 5 September 1989
- Judges listed
- RANGANATH MISRA, G.L. OZA
- Disposal
- Directions issued
Citations
- Official
- [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 34 · 1989 INSC 266
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
It is stated by counsel appearing for the States including that of Nagaland that affidavits as directed have been filed. Mr. Jain appearing in support of the writ pet\tion has asked for a direction to the State to set up Advisory Boards both at the State and the District levels, as contemplated in the scheme so that implementation of the various provisions of the Act can be facilitated.
p. 35, margin C
We are of the view that for the present the Board in terms of the provision of the scheme should be set up at the State level and steps at the District level may be deferred for the present.
p. 35, margin C
Each of the States including the State of Jammu & Kashmir to which the scheme would apply though not under the Act in view of its consent, is directed to set up its Advisory Board in terms of the scheme. Implementation of the Act would be convenient if in the Board to be set up the Ministers of Law and Social or Children's Welfare, as the case may be, the Secretary to Government in the relevant Department, the Head of the Police Establishment (Director General or the Inspector General, as the case may be), the Head of the Health Directorate, two members of the Bar with appropriate aptitude, an acknowledge lady social worker, a Member of Parliame.nt and a M.ember of the State Legislature, one or two social worke£> of .acknowledged -.reput~ preferably connected with children's rehabilitation activity ate included. It would be open to the State Government to make small variations depending upon the requirements of any particular State. The total number of the Advisory Boards should not be below 15 and not above 20: The State Government should indicate as to wno would be the Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Board. Such Committee should be set up within six weeks from today ·and report of compliance shall be filed with the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. The first meeting of the Board should be within
pp. 35–36, margin E
four weeks of its constitution and every such Board is directed to send its first proceeding to the Registry.
p. 36, margin A
N.P.V. I~
p. 36, margin B