A N ROY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. SURESH SHARMA SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on July 04,2006

A.N.ROY, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Appellant
VERSUS
SURESH SHAM SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

K AMEER KHAN VS. A GANGADHARAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER VS. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-207] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P LEGAL AFFIAR LAW N DEPT VS. M VENKATESHWARALU [LAWS(APH)-2007-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
KHAITAN ELECTRICALS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
KHAITAN ELECTRICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER VS. HOOGHLY MILLS CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIDGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LAND ACQUISITION AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(CAL)-2008-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA RAM THAPA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-12-134] [REFERRED TO]
RAKSHA GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU CHIEF SECY. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-106] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI SUGAR MILL (EXCISE ) VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-352] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2008-3-102] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADESAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-266] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA MURARKA AND ORS. VS. THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
MANSA RAM YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-647] [REFERRED TO]
R B SHUKLA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM SINGH PURANSING GILL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
U.P.STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. SUNIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAYAN VS. U.P.POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR KUNWAR AMBRESWAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-94] [REFERRED TO]
U P CO OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHIMPUR FINVEST COMPANY LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ KISHORE VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT KUMAR MATA NEHLIYA VS. CHOWDHARY UJJAIR [LAWS(ALL)-2011-8-165] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. U.P. JAL NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-257] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS C.G.O. VS. SONAM INTERNATIONAL SHOP NO. 9 [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-327] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITHA VENKATRAM AND ORS. VS. DIVYA RAYAPATI [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-446] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIN AND ORS. VS. ONIKA MEHROTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
S.M.J. MARY JOSELIN KINGSLY VS. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THUCKALAY AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-4-384] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED THRU RAHUL KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU INSTITUTIONAL FINANCE AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-330] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV SHARMA VS. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-548] [REFERRED TO]
BALAMURUGAN VS. STATE; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (LAW AND ORDER); EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-189] [REFERRED]
CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER VS. MODERN TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANCY SERVICE PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2008-5-104] [RELIED ON]
CALCUTTA VS. SHANKAR KUMAR DAS AND ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2009-4-79] [REFERRED]
MRS. B. RAJARAJESHWARI VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-196] [REFERRED TO]
P. MURUGAN VS. THE REGISTRAR, DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 55, WELLINGTON ESTATE, ETHIRAJ SALAI, IV FLOOR, CHENNAI 600 105 [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-204] [REFERRED TO]
MALABAR DIAMOND GALLERY PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.SHAFEEKH VS. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE CHENNAI ZONAL UNIT NO.117, GOPALA KRISHNA ROAD, T.NAGAR CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-7-336] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. ONIKA MEHROTRA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-1009] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. PONDY DIE CASTINGS (P) LTD. VS. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (COMMERCIAL TAXES) PUDUCHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-10-206] [REFERRED TO]
SENAUL S/O AFSAR SHAIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. LINEN WORD, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR, TMT. S. VADIVUKARASI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-10-402] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH GAUTAM S/O MALARAM SHARMA (BRAHMAN) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD VS. VAIBHAV JHAWAR AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
SABA.RAJENDRAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-266] [REFERRED TO]
R.BALAMEENA VS. CHIEF ENGINEER / PERSONNEL TAMILNADU GENERATION [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-345] [REFERRED TO]
MURALEEDHARAN T. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-162] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SIVASANKARA PILLAI VS. FEDERAL BANK LTD [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-365] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SAMAD V. T. VS. VALANCHERY MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-375] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI VS. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-768] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNANKUTTY A. VS. KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-678] [REFERRED TO]
YAMIN VS. THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
ANKESH GURJAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
T. N. PARAMESWARA KURUP VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-1-182] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPA DEVI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-7-142] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The challenge in these batches of appeals is to the order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.1333 of 2004 whereby the High Court quashed the Notification dated 1.10.1999 issued by the State of Maharashtra.
(3.)The Background facts:-
The Parliament enacted the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Statement of objects and reasons is as follows:-

(1) In 1950 the Government of India ratified an International Convention for the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. Under Article 23 of the Convention, traffic in human beings is prohibited and any contravention of the prohibition is an offence punishable by law. Under Article 35 such a law has to be passed by Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of the Constitution.

(2) Legislation on the subject of suppression of immoral traffic does exist in a few States but the laws are neither uniform nor do they go far enough. In the remaining States there is no bar on the subject at all.

(3) In the circumstances it is necessary and desirable that a Central Law should be passed which will not only secure uniformity but also would be sufficiently deterrent for the purpose. But a special feature of the Bill as that it provides that no person or authority other than the State Government shall establish or maintain any protective home except under a licence issued by the State Government. This will check the establishment of homes which are really dens for prostitution.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.