AMAR SARAN & ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) - We have heard Sri vimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A., and Ms. Manju R. Chauhan, Amicus Curiae in this Criminal PIL.
(2.) THREE affidavits of compliance dated 19.3.2012 of the order dated 12.1.2012 on behalf of the Director and Secretary, Women and Child Development, U.P,, on behalf of the District Magistrate, Probation Officer, Superintendent Government Protection Home, Varanasi and on behalf of U.P. Legal Service Authority have been filed in this case. We have also perused the Uttar Pradesh Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Rules 1993, hereinafter referred to as "FTP Rules" and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter the "FTP Act"). The affidavit on behalf of the Director and Secretary, Women and Child Development has provided data relating to the period 1.9.2011 to 29.2.2011. According to the affidavit across the State of U.P. there are 714 women, who are in the women's homes because they were either wanted in cases or for giving evidence, 188 inmates are in the homes for want of shelter. It is further mentioned that 356 inmates have been rescued to their parents, 163 inmates to their husbands, 1 inmate has been provided employment, 6 inmates have been married off, 28 inmates have been transferred to other Protection Homes, one inmate has died and 5 inmates have run away. This comes to a total of 561. Charts giving a detailed break up regarding such women with reasons for their non-release have been annexed as Annexures 1, 2 and 3.
(3.) AT the outset this Court would like to record its appreciation that as a result of its intervention as many as 526 inmates have been rehabilitated by being restored to their parents, husbands or have otherwise been provided employment or have been married off. A perusal of the ITP Rules shows that a 'Chief Inspector' has been appointed under Rule 2 (d) of the Rules to discharge the functions mentioned under Rule 40 to superintend, supervise and control the working of the Homes and to control the staff of the protective homes and corrective institutions whether established or licensed by the State Government. Under Rule 38 on a report of the Superintendent, the Chief Inspector may order release of any person detained in a protective home or corrective institution, if in the opinion of the Inspector the person is not likely to commit any offence under the Act after the inmate has undergone six months in a corrective institution or one third of detention in the protective home. We entertain serious doubts whether the Chief Inspector, Smt. Arti who we are informed by the learned AGA was appointed as far back as 1997 has been exercising any of the functions mentioned above. She was also shown as holding charge of Assistant Director, Women Welfare since 1997. We also wonder how any official could handle both these important charges.;