AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramalingam Sudhakar, CJ
[1] Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitoiner and Mr. N.Kumarjit, learned AG for the State respondents and Mr.S.Samarjeet, learned CGC for the Union respondents.
[2] This PIL has been directed to be listed on an early date considering the seriousness of the issue wherein the safety of women in domestic as well as in public sphere including work place is being seriously jeopardised in the form of violence like harassment due to assault, stalking, molestation, rape, etc. They face violence on streets, public transport, parks, work place and in other public places. One such dastardly incident happened in the outskirts of Hyderabad city very recently which shocked the conscience of our nation and the world, more particularly, the women. The gruesome manner in which the victim was ill treated by the accused reveals the brutal nature of the mind of the accused person involved in the offence. Earlier, a similar incident also happened in New Delhi resulting in the formation of Nirbhaya fund by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India and its objects are as follws :-
" The Nirbhaya Fund Framework provides for a non-lapsable corpus fund for safety and security of women to be administered by the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the Government of India. Further, it provides for an Empowered Committee (EC) of officers chaired by the Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development (MWCD) to appraise and recommend proposals to be funded under their framework. It also provides for the concerned Ministry/Department to seek approval of the designated competent financial authority, as well as of the DEA for funding of such proposals under the Nirbhaya Framework. As per this framework, the MoF through DEA is the nodal Ministry for any accretion into and withdrawal from the corpus, and the MWCD is responsible to review and monitor the progress of sanctioned projects/schemes in conjunction with the concerned Central Ministries/Department. Budget allocations against approved projects are made in the budget of the respective Ministries/Departments through Demands or Supplementary Demands for Grants"
[3] Consequent thereto, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India issued guidelines for proposal from Central Government, Ministries, Departments, States, Union Territories to be funded under the Nirbyaya Fund. The scope of guidelines is at para No.1.1. The same reads as follows:-
"Ministry of Women and Child Development
Government of India.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Women safety issues cut across sectors and can range from domestic to public sphere as well as the workplace. Violence in public spaces is an everyday occurrence for women and girls around the world, both in urban and rural areas. Women and girls experience various types of violence in public spaces from harassment to assault including stalking, molestation, rape etc. Women face violence on streets, public transport and parks, in and around schools and workplaces, in public sanitation facilities and water and food distribution sites, or in their own neighborhoods. This reality reduces women's and girls' freedom of movement. It reduces their ability to participate in school, work and in public life. It limits their access to essential services, and enjoyment of cultural and recreational opportunities. It also negatively impacts their health and well-being. Violence against women and girls in public spaces impedes women empowerment by restricting their mobility and is therefore recognized as women rights violation."
Nodal authority is specified in para No.1.2. The role of the Central Government , Departments and State Government is specified in Clause No.1.3, which reads as follows:-
"1.3 Central Government Ministers/Departments and State Governments/UT Administrations may formulate proposals factoring in women safety issues in their sector within the public sphere for seeking funding under Nirbhaya Fund.
The concerned State Government/Department will formulate a proposal for women security and safety with regard to their sector ( for example - road transport, police, power etc.) and submits the same to concerned Central Government Ministry/Department with an advance copy to the Secretary (also Chairperson of Empowered Committee), Ministry of Women and Child Development, Room No.601, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001."
[4] Clause .2 provides for empowered Committee. Clause 3 provides for proposal by the Central Government and State Government and Union territories. Clause 3.2 which is relevent for the present case is as follows:-
"3.2. At the State/UT level, the concerned State Government Department will formulate a proposal for women security and safety with regard to their specific sector (for example - road transport, police, power etc.) and submit the same to concerned Central Government Ministry/ Department with an advance copy to the Secretary( also the Chairperson, Empowered Committee) Ministry of Women and Child Development for appraisal and recommendation of the proposal."
The modalities of the funds has been specified therein. Clause 4 provides the funding pattern and it reads as follows:-
"4. FUNDING PATTERN
4.1 The cost of projects/schemes of the State Government will be shared in the ratio of 60:40 ( as per guidelines of Ministry of Finance) under Nirbhaya fund.
4.2 The funds for the projects/schemes shall be released following the procedures prescribed in GFR 2005."
Clause 5 deals with monitoring and evaluation. It reads as follows:-
"5. MONITORING & EVALUATION
5.1 Administration, monitoring and reporting mechanism of the projects/schemes will be laid down by the Sponsoring Central Government Ministry/Department. It is proposed that the monitoring and reporting mechanism to be followed at the State Government/U.T. level and at the level of the nodal (sponsoring) Central Government Ministry/Department should form a part of the proposal being forwarded to the Empowered Committee and should be considered by the committee while appraising the proposal."
It is disturbing to note that substantial amount has been sanctioned under Nirbhaya Fund to be used by the States and in so far as the Manipur is concern, records shows that for the State of Manipur, for Emergency Response Supports System, Rs. 446.53 lakhs has been sanctioned and there is zero utilisation. For strengthening of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rs.235 lakhs has been sanctioned for the State of Manipur and no funds has been utilised.
[5] After the incident, the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory has
issued a letter to the Inspector General of Police dated 06.12.2019 which is extracted below:-
"No. 31/10/88-FSL (Mod)/Nirv
Government of Manipur
Office of the Director
Forensic Science Laboratory
Manipur, Imphal
Pangei, the 6th December, 2019
To
The Inspector General of Police (Int.)
Manipur, Imphal.
Sub: Status report for the project "Strengthening of Forensic Science Laboratory, Manipur for DNA Analysis, Cyber Forensic and other related facilities' under Nirbhaya Fund along with Utilization Certification-Reg.
Sir,
This office received a copy of the letter No.9/31(2)/2019-H(FSL) Pt. dated 30th November, 2019 from the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur addressed to the Director General of Police, Manipur on the above subject (Annexure-A).
So far, no fund has been utilized for the project except transferring of Rs.1 crore to MPHC, Status of the project is furnished below for kind forwarding to the government for submission to MHA.
Fund released : Centre already released Rs.2355 crore as 1st instalment.
Action Taken
Sl. No
Item approved
Amount (in Rs. Lakhs)
Status
Current status to be indicated
1
Repairing of building with fabrication
100
Pending with MPHC
Rs. 1 Crore had already been deposited byto Manipur Police Housing Corporation MPHC to start the repairing work. Matter is under process in MPHC.
2
Purchase of equipment of DNA Analysis
350
Pending
3.
One Scientific Assistant & one Technical Assistant for DNA unit
25
Proposal submitted to the Government for recruitment. Under process for obtaining Cabinet approval.
4
Purchase of one vehicle for collection of clue materials from crime scene
20
Proposing for purchase after release of second installment of fund
5.
State Government has submitted a letter to the Centre requesting to release 2nd installment of fund as the present balance of Rs. 1.3.55 crore, after transfer of fund of rs. 1 crore to MPHC, cannot meet the requirement for purchasing DNA equipments amounting to Rs. 3.5 crore
Encl. Annexure A & UC
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Dr. S. Joychandra Singh)
Director
Forensic Science Laboratory,
Pangei"
[6] From this letter, we note that everything is in the stage of proposal and pending with one or the other department. No action has been taken. The money has been received from the Central Government. It is unfortunate that no action has been taken by the State Government. Mere correspondence between one department to other will be of no avail. That only shows red tapism and bureaucratic delay which is causing delay in strengthening the Forensic Science Laboratory which is one of the key factors identified for the purpose of untilisation of Nirbyaya Fund.
[7] We direct the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police to ensure that the utilization of the Nirbhaya Fund for Forensic Science Laboratory Upgradation is reported on the next hearing date, namely, 19.12.2019 without fail.
[8] If any of the officers refuses or does not comply with the direction, he or she will be held personally liable and held responsible for disobeying the order of this Court. Further, there has been lot of uproar in public domain that justice is delayed. Unfortunately, the problem is in manifold some of which has been highlighted in one order of this Court namely in W.P. (C) No. 287 of 2019 (Shri Maibam Sanjoy Singh & ors. vs. State of Manipur & ors. passed on 14.10.2019). It is a case of mob lynching and in that case, this Court has held as follows :
"[8] Mob lynching or mob violence is one of the worst forms of crime committed by a group of people in a locality without any botheration of its consequence. According to them, there might be various causes or reasons which may not be just or legal, on the basis of which such said crime is committed by them, out of which one is commonly or generally said to be due to the delay in the delivery of justice or the administration of justice. In order to understand the criminal administration of justice in a simple way, it can be broadly divided into two - one, for the men and women and two, for the children.
Crime committed by men and women:
The administration of justice is, in a sense, a legal process which can be said to be complete in respect of a case when the judgment and order is delivered by a Judge. The administration of justice involves three stakeholders or for that matter, three organs of the Government - one, the Legislature; two, the Executive and three, the Judiciary. The role of the Legislature is to make the law. It is for the Executive to implement it and the Judiciary will interpret the law as and when it is brought to the notice of the Court. The Executive and the Judiciary are, by and large and directly, concerned and involved with the administration of justice. Two Departments of the Executive namely, the Home Department and the Law Department play a vital role towards implementing the law, of which the role of the Home Department is paramount. The legal process of the administration of justice involves many stages which can be broadly divided into four. The first stage commences from the day when a case is registered by the police till the completion of the investigation thereof. The second stage starts when a charge sheet is filed in the Court after the investigation is over and continues till when the recording of the evidence is completed or in other words, till when the examination of witnesses is completed. The third stage is the one where the hearing of the case takes place in the Court and the fourth stage is the period during which the judgment and order is prepared and delivered by the Judge.
First Stage - As long as a case is not registered, the police cannot investigate it properly and effectively but there are cases which have been brought to the notice of this Court complaining that the police have refused to register a case. These days, it appears to be a common phenomenon or the attitude of the police which shall be avoided and the police shall be sensitized about it. In the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of any complaint being lodged with the police as regards the cognizable offence, the police is duty bound to register a case. After a case being registered, the police will commence its investigation. A lot of time is consumed by the police during investigation for many reasons, some of which mention may be made, are that there is no enough Investigating Officers at the police station and that the forensic reports are not received by the police in time. Even after the law being laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some cases, the State Government appears to have not insulated the function of the police of maintaining law and order from that of the investigation. The consequence is that the charge sheet is not filed in time, because of which the trial gets delayed and many a times, the accused are to be released on bail after the statutory period thereof is over. It is the State Government and not the Judge concerned, which has to take immediate and appropriate actions so as to overcome this problem in future.
Second Stage - It is the stage of recording evidence or examining the witnesses. It is the prosecution and not the Judge concerned, which has to produce the witness before the Court to prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution means nothing but the State Government. Even if a case is listed before a Court, the statement of the witness cannot, sometimes, be recorded due to non-availability of the witness on the date fixed for the evidence. It is at this stage during which a maximum time is consumed by the Court. In this regard too, it is the prosecution and in other words, the State Government and not the Judge concerned, which has to produce its witness, in the absence of which the Judge cannot proceed further with the trial. The main problem that is being faced commonly and frequently by the Courts, at the second stage, in the State is the inability on the part of the State Government and in particular, the Home Department, to execute the warrant for years together. Similar is the case with the summons to be served upon the witnesses. Recently, a list of about forty cases pending in the State of Manipur, for more than twenty-five years, has been sent to this Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the direction that immediate and appropriate steps be taken to ensure that the same are disposed of at an early date and on perusal thereof, it is found that many of them have been pending for such a long time for want of execution of the warrants. It is, therefore, the right time for the State Government to inquire into the causes of such inability and the remedial measures thereof are timely & promptly taken by it so that the legal process will become faster and can be made even faster than the earlier one. What a Judge can do at this stage is minimal and limited as stated hereinabove.
Third Stage - It is at this stage that the arguments of both the public prosecutor and the private advocate are to be heard at length and sometimes, it takes time for the Court to conclude it for one reason or the other. The frequent adjournment sought for by the private advocate or the public prosecutor is one of the problems which generally lead to the delay of the conclusion of the argument. But it may be noted that the time taken during the course of hearing is not so long as that of the first or the second stage mentioned above.
Fourth Stage - After the hearing is over, the Judge will normally reserve his/ her judgment and order and while writing it, some time is taken by him/ her. It may be noted at this juncture that a Judge will write his/ her judgment and order only after the hearing is over and not prior to that. In other words, a Judge cannot write his/ her judgment and order before the completion of the aforesaid three stages. Here lies the responsibility of the Judge to do it within a reasonable time which can be hardly few months.
[9] The term "Court" does not mean the Judges only and it involves and includes the Court building and staff of the Court as well or in other words, the infrastructure and the manpower which are to be provided by the State Government. As has been observed hereinabove, a Judge cannot write his judgment unless and until the hearing is over. It is a lengthy legal process commencing from the registration of a case till the conclusion of the hearing and during this long period, the role of a Judge is minimal and limited and he/ she cannot do much without the co-operation being extended to him/ her by the prosecution and the private advocates. A Court needs a building and its sufficient staff and judges, in the absence of which the delivery of justice will automatically get delayed for no fault of the Judges. In the State of Manipur, the sanctioned strength of the judges, as on date, is fifty only plus five judge co-terminus with the fourteen finance award which is valid till 31-03-2020 as compared with the sanctioned strength of the judges in the State of Tripura which is about hundred & ten judges. The final stage for encadrement of four posts of Judicial Officer Grade-III created by the State Government recently, to work as the Principal Magistrates of the Juvenile Justice Boards, is in the pipeline. Out of the sanctioned strength of fifty Judges, four posts of Judicial Grade-II which are, at present, lying vacant for want of eligible officers for promotion from the post of Judicial Officer Grade-III, while three posts of Judicial Officer Grade-I which are lying vacant for want of eligible candidates for appointment by direct recruitment, may not be available for service in the near future. Similar is the case with the four posts of Judicial Officer Grade-III, created recently to work as the Principal Magistrates of the Juvenile Justice Boards, because their services will not be available, at least, for a year as they will have to undergo requisite training. On top of that, the unfortunate part is that the five Judicial Officer Grade-I will retire by the early part of the next year except one who will retire in the later part of the next year. The working strength of the Judges, by the end of the next year, will be reduced to less than forty Judges who will not be able to cope up with the present volume of works towards the administration of justice. Consequently, the administration of justice may have to remain a far dream. The solution for these problems lies mainly in the hands of the State Government and not in the hands of the Courts alone. There is a misconception in the mind of the general public in the State that the justice is not delivered in time for which the Judges shall be held responsible. It is no doubt true that the delivery of justice, in a sense, is nothing but the pronouncement of a judgment and order in a case by a Judge but a Judge cannot write his/ her judgment and order whenever he/ she feels like without the legal process being completed as aforesaid. He/ she has to start writing his/ her judgment and order only after the hearing/ argument is over and not prior to that at all, as has been observed hereinabove, the role of a Judge is minimal in the sense that it is the State Government through the prosecution, and not the Judge, which has to produce the materials/ evidences to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the State Government to take pro-active actions to enhance the effective functioning of the police and the prosecution so as to get the legal process completed in time. As long as the legal process is not completed, the administration of justice will remain unmateralised. If the State Government fails to discharge its duties and functions effectively in this regard, the delay in the administration of justice may continue to occur leading to the occurrence of such unfortunate incidents like mob lynching or mob violence.
Crime committed by the children:
Prior to the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Juvenile Justice Act"), both the crimes committed by the men & women and the children were being dealt with by the normal criminal Court. After the Juvenile Justice Act being enacted by the Parliament, the crime committed by the children has been carved out of the common and legal process of criminal administration of justice. The term "accused" is no longer used in respect of the children and in its place, the expression "Child in Conflict with law" has been used therein. The duty and the responsibility to deal with the child in conflict with law have been entrusted to the Juvenile Justice Board whose role is different from that of the ordinary Court. A special training is required to deal with the child in conflict with law. Only an Investigating Officer who is well versed & trained with the technicalities of dealing with the child, shall investigate the case involving a child. Whenever a child in conflict with law is apprehended, he is required to be kept in the observation home and not in the jail. Since the Juvenile Justice Boards are institutions like Courts, they require adequate infrastructure and sufficient staff, members & Judges of the Board which are not adequately available with the present Juvenile Justice Boards in the State. The independent and separate Principal Magistrates for the Juvenile Justice Boards which have been established formally in all the districts of Manipur, are not available at all with the result that the existing Judicial Officers Grade-III are given the additional charge of the Juvenile Justice Boards, even though they are already overburdened with their normal works in the Courts. Since the Courts and the offices of the Juvenile Justice Boards are situated at different places, the Judicial Officers who are given the charge of both, are required to make frequent moves from one place to another disturbing their functioning in the Courts. Most of the time, the Juvenile Justice Boards who have to sit at 2 pm after the Judicial Officers leaving their normal work in the Courts, are compelled to hold sitting upto 7 pm creating a lot of inconvenience to themselves as well as the staff, private Advocates, APPs and the general public. In one of its judgment and order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Juvenile Justice Boards shall hold their sitting regularly which is impossible in the State of Manipur for the reasons stated hereinabove. The State Government needs to keep in mind this aspect as the number of crimes committed by the children is increasing day by day and the Juvenile Justice Boards, in its present form, will not be able to tackle it effectively. The Juvenile Justice Boards are, presently and in fact, functioning only for namesake, as the requisite infrastructure and the manpower have not yet been provided by the State Government. As per the list furnished by the Registry of the High Court, there are five observation homes in the State, out of which only the observation home situated at Takyel, Imphal, is stated to be run and managed by the State Government but the unfortunate part thereof is that the staff working at the observation home at Takyel i.e., the employees who have been working there for the last many years, have not yet been appointed on regular basis. The State Government needs to pay its attention to it without any further delay. The remaining four observation homes are being run by the NGOs with the assistance provided either by the Central Government or by the State Government. These observation homes lack adequate security and infrastructure and even the money earmarked for them, are also not released in time by the State Government as alleged by them. On top of that, in some of the districts, there is no observation home at all as a result of which when a child in conflict with law is apprehended by the police in these districts, he or she is to be kept in the observation home, Imphal. On the date on which the case is listed for further proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, the child being kept at observation home, Imphal, is required to be taken to the Board which puts a lot of inconvenience to the persons running the NGOs or the child friendly police stations. Many a times, the proceedings are to be deferred due to non-production of the child in conflict with law before the Board in time. Therefore, the observation homes are required to be established by the State Government in all the districts at the earliest possible and that too, they shall be run by the State Government itself keeping in mind the security of the child in conflict with law. It may be noted that the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted by the Parliament as back as in the year, 2000 with the amendments being made from time to time. Therefore, it is expected that the State Government shall do the needful at the earliest possible in the interest of public as well as in its own interest so as to enable it to tackle the law & order problems effectively in the State."
[9] It is lucidly stated in the order of the Court the reason for delay in delivering justice and why the Courts are unable to complete the proceeding purely on account of external factors which has been highlighted in the above order. We usefully refer to the same para 8 and 9 as extracted above.
[10] One of the main reasons for delay is on account of service of summons on witnesses and also for securing accused persons. In this regard, it has been highlighted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court time and again that an effective mechanism should be worked out to ensure that notice, summons or warrants issued by Criminal Court are executed in an effective manner.
[11] This Court has sent a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and Director General of Police to designate Additional Superintendent of Police in each District as Additional SP( Prosecutor) by letter dated23.09.2019. So far, there is no response, except some sort of inter departmental communication letter which reads as follows:
PIL NO. 14 of 2017 Page 11
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
No. HCM/Misc. - 89/2013-A&E/20834 Dated, the 23rd September, 2019
From: A. Guneshwar Sharma, MJS
Registrar General,
High Court of Manipur,
Imphal, Mantripukhri - 795002
To
The Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur
The Director General of Police, Manipur.
Subject: Designating Addl. S.P. in each district as Addl. S.P. (Prosecution)
Sir,
I am directed to request you to take steps for designating one of the Addl. SPs in each district as Addl. S.P. (Prosecution) for the purpose of service and execution of notice, summon and warrant issued by Criminal Courts.
It may be pointed out that in Manipur, the service/execution of notice, summon and warrant issued by Criminal Courts is dealt centrally at Imphal West by the office of the Addl. S.P. (Prosecution) and there are 2 (two) such Officers.
The State of Manipur is approximately 90% hill area and 10% valley. The approach to Imphal city is very difficult and time consuming. The delay in service of summon and warrant is badly affecting the trial of criminal cases. The logistics of sending the summon and warrant to Imphal for resending once again to the very same district or to other district is a wasteful expenditure and time consuming exercise. It results in unwanted wastage of time, manpower and money. This could be saved if the following is adopted.
In the present arrangement the delivery of notice, summon and warrant to the concerned Police Stations has to be first sent to Imphal and then to concerned places, i.e. districts. The delayed execution of the notice, summon & warrant results in immense delay in disposal of criminal cases and projects a wrong image of Criminal Courts to the public.
It has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on administrative side that suitable directions should be issued by the High Court to avoid such delays. The Supreme Court, both on judicial as well as administrative side, has explained the need to take steps for execution of notice, summon and warrant in a time bound manner.
Hence, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Manipur has requested your goodself to address the issue on top priority and in the interest of improving the justice delivery system.
As directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, you are requested to designate one of the Addl. S.P.s. of the concerned district as Addl. S.P. (Prosecution) for that district as in-charge of execution of notice, summon and warrants in criminal cases. This will be in addition to the existing 2 (two) Addl. S.P.s (Prosecution) at Imphal West.
You are therefore, requested to take up necessary steps for designating one of the Addl. S.P.s of each district as Addl. S.P. (Prosecution) for that district and thereby streamline the service of process of notice, summon and warrants. Your immediate response is solicited.
Thanking you.
Yours sincerely
-Sd/-
A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Registrar General"
[12] We also direct the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police to report compliance on this issue on 19.12.2019 without fail.
It has been widely reported that Nirvaya Fund has not been properly utilized by many of the States and the Ministry of Women Child Department has been impressing upon the State Government to utilise the fund for the safety and security of women. The status of utilization of funds so far as the Manipur State is concerned is evident from the chart prepared by the Registrar General of this High Court, which will form a part of this order. It is reproduced hereinunder:-
"Ministry of Home Affairs :
Project wise details of funds allocated (funds released) to State of Manipur for projects being taken under Nirbhaya Scheme by Ministry of Home Affairs.
Emergency Response Support System (ERSS):
(Rs. in Lakh)
Sl. No
State/ U.T.
Allocation (funds released)
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Utilisation Certificate received
1.
Manipur
-
-
446.53
-
-
-
Strengthening State Forensic Science Laboratories in 13 States/UT :
(Rs. in Lakh)
Sl. No
State/ U.T.
Allocation (funds released)
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Utilisation Certificate received
1.
Manipur
-
-
-
-
235.50
-
Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) :
(Rs. in Lakh)
Sl. No
State/ U.T.
Allocation (funds released)
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Utilisation Certificate received
1.
Manipur
-
34.00
-
-
-
-
Cyber Crime Prevention against Women & Children (CCPWC) :
(Rs. in Lakh)
Sl. No
State/ U.T.
Allocation (funds released)
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Utilisation Certificate received
1.
Manipur
-
-
-
162.75
-
-
One Stop Centre Scheme:
(Rs. in Lakh)
Sl. No
State/ U.T.
Allocation (funds released)
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Utilisation Certificate received
1.
Manipur
12.89
-
-
357.22
-
-
Universalisation of Women Helpline :
(Rs. in Lakh)
Sl. No
State/ U.T.
Allocation (funds released)
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Utilisation Certificate received
1.
Manipur
49.70
-
-
-
-
-
Sl. No.
Fund released (Rs. in Lakh)
1.
446.53
2.
235.50
3.
34.00
4.
162.75
5.
12.89+357.22 = 519.97
6.
49.70
Total
1298.59
Say Rs. 12.9859 crore"
[13] We hope and direct the State of Manipur to take up the issue immediately.
[14] List the matter again on 19.12.2019 for reporting compliance. A copy of this order be issued to learned AG, Mr. S.Samarjeet, learned CGC, Mr.M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and the Director General of Police, Government of Manipur, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Pangei and for reporting.