The court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The dismissal was based on the recent Division Bench judgment in Nitu & Ors., which upheld the validity of the impugned Section.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I
i l'''
W.P.(CRL)_962_2013_J
| Casie No | : 962 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Year | : 2013 |
|
| Date Of Decision •i |
: 17/05/2016 |
|
| Case Type | CRIMINAL WRITS | |
| Decided By | : Hon'able Mr/Mrs Justice MUKTAGUPTAJ |
|
| Petitioner/Plaintiff Name ' |
: VARSHA |
|
| ' i"; ^ !ii ,. |
i . I; . • . • Respondent/Defendent Name |
, • - . : GOVTOFNOTOF DELHI&ANOTHER |
| Petitioner/Plaintiff's Adv |
: KKSUD& OTHERS |
|
| Respondent/Defendant' Adv | : ADITYASWARUPAGARWAL&t)THERS | |
I ! |
jPrint Date |
: 22-06-2017 |
| Company Name | : DATASOFTCOMPUTERSERVICES |
''.''."I
•-I'l
H.C.D.0.A.-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDEX SHEET
CAUSETITLE.....tl!l>...P...C&rl2 OF 200
NAME OF THE
PARTIES
VERSUS
PARTA& B
SI. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS AMOUNT
OF
No. PAGE
COURT FEE
PAID
< U.M
t-
A- yt'
4^ XL fe>y^d
is t>uJ'
GuJ^
'''trsr,rr.
f
$-63
VARSHA Petitioner Through Mr.JayantK. Sud, Adv. with Mr.Vishal Dabas, Mi'.Chirag Khurana and Mr.Ujas Kumai', Advs.
versus
OF NCT OF DELHI& ANR. ANR. Respondent Through Ms.Cham Dalai, Adv. for Mr.Saleem Ahmed, Adv.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI& ANR. ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
ORDER
% 07.06.2013
Crl.M.A. No.9336/2013
Exemptionallowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
W.P.rCRLl 962/2013
1
Issue notice. Notice is acceptedthe counsel appearingon behalf of the respondents. Statusreportbe filed. List on 2E' August, 2013.
Crl.M.A. No.9335/2013
Issue notice. Notice is accepted the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. List on 2 August, 2013.
Mr.Jayant K. Sud, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has referred to various orders passed by this Court, copies of which have been filed along with the petition.
^ z
After considering the said orders, till the next date of heai'ing, the operationof order dated 6^^ June, 2013 passed in SessionsNo.77/2012shall remain stayed.
Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master!
lN SING! (VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 07, 2013/jk
^ 4-^ lu-A •?') 0I" rf-''
V
3
$~3, 21 to 25, 29 and 30.
| VARSHA SHAMSHAD SUJATA SUNITA SHAMSHAD BABY GANGA DEVI CHANDA |
Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Through; Mr. Vishal Dabas, Advocates n W.P.(CRL) 962/2013 n W.P.(CRL) 1125/2012 n W.P.(CRL)1132/2012 n W.P.(CRL)1133/2012 n W.P.(CRL) 327/2013 n W.P.(CRL) 1134/2012 n W.P.(CRL) 630/2013 n W.P.(CRL) 631/2013 Dabas and Mr. Amish |
|---|
| versus |
|---|
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ANR. Respondents Through: Ms. Charu Dalai, Advocatefor Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
o/o 21.08.2013
W.P.(CRL) 962/2013 and connected matters
Page 1 of 2
M
petitions were listed before the Division Bench today and have been adjournedto 07.11.2013.
of hearing. HIMA KOHLI, 3 AUGUST 21, 2013 rkb O-fS^
W.P.(CRL)962/2013and connectedmatters 2of2
<;•
$-2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VARSHA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Dabas, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI&ANR. Respondent Through:Mr. SaleemAhmed, ASC for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
ORDER % 16.01.2014
It is submittedthat the petitions before the Division Bench of this court wherein challenge has been made to the vires of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Act, 1956 are still pending. It is stated that next date in the matter is 18.02.2014.
Renotify on 11.03.2014 for awaiting the outcome of aforesaid petition.
y
The interimordergrantedshall continuetill the next date.
^
VEENA BIRBAL, J
JANUARY 16,2014 srb /
*^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VARSHA Petitioner
Through:Mr. VishalDabas,Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI&ANR. Respondents Through:Ms. ChamDalaifor Mr. SaleemAhmed, StandingCounsel(Crl.)for State. 10 SI Rakesh Kumar, P.S. Kamla Market.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
%
ORDER 11.03.2014
It is submittedthat the petitionsbefore the Division Bench of this court wherein challenge has been made to the vires of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Act, 1956 are still pending and the next date there is 29.4.2014.
Renotifyon 22.7.2014for awaitingthe outcomeof aforesaidpetitions. The interim order granted shall continue till the next date.
VEENA BIRBAL, J MARCH 11,2014 , . , r/ .
^ ^ j -fl^ 2>> /VoVT/c J)-(^ . • yIcCq^
—• I.TfMc,h-
$-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Petitioner
Xhrough: Mr.ChiragKhurana,Adv.
versus
roVT OF NOT OF DELHI&ANR. Respondents Through: Ms.CharuDalai,Adv. for Mr.Saleem Ahmed, StandingCounselfor the State/R-1 and R-2.
. r
CORAM:
HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEPRATIBHARANI
ORDER
0/„ 22.07.2014
It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that matter, whereinchallengehas been made to the vires of Section18 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention)Act, 1956 is stillpendingbeforeDivisionBenchofthis Courtand is listedfor 28^ July, 2014 and adatethereafteris requested.
At request,list on 21^ October,2014.
^
Interimordersto continuetill the next date ofhearing.
Order dasti.
*RATIBHA RANI,
JULY 22, 2014
'St'f
Lrr'j-rrrc: lU J.g.
$-1^
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VARSHA Petitioner Through : Mr.Chirag Khurana and Mr.C.P.Nautiyal, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCI OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Through : Ms.Charu Dalai, Adv. for Mr.Saleem Ahmed, Standing counsel for the State/R-1 and R-2 with SI Ramesh Chand, PS Kamla Market.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
ORDER
%
27.10.2014
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the matter, wherein challenge has been made to the vires of Section 18 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Act, 1956 is still pending before Division Bench of this Court and is listedfor 7^November,2014.
i
At request, list on 15"^ January, 2015. Till then, interim orders to continue.
Order dasti.
^RATIBHARATIBHA RANI, J
OCTOBER 27,2014 'st\
. f 3-3(5^/
— X' X p
$-4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 962/2013 & CRL.M.A. 9335/2013
VARSHA Petitioner
Through: Mr JayantK.Sud, Ms BonitaSingh and Mr C.P.Nautiyal, Advocates.
versus
DELHI &ANR.ANR. Respondents Through: Mr SaleemAhmed, StandingCounsel (Crl.) with Ms Cham Dalai, Advocate.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ANR.ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
ORDER
%
15.01.2015
Teamedcounselfor the partiessubmitthat the matterwhereina challenge has been made to the vires of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ispendingdecisionbeforea DivisionBenchof this court.
To await the outcome of the aforesaid matter the present petition is adjoumed.Renotifyon 08.04.2015.
Interim orders to continue.
^
SIDD^RTHMRIDUL,J
JANUARY15,2015_ \
$-11
VARSHA
Petitioner
ThroughMr. JayantK. Sud with Ms. BonitaSingh and Mr. C.P.Nautiyal,Advoeates.
versus
GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI & ANR.
Respondent
ThroughMr.SaleemAhmed StandingCounsel(Crl.) with Ms.CharuDalai, Advocate. SI Deepak, Kamla Market
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL ORDER
% 08.04.2015
To await the outcomeof the challengeto the vires of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which is still pending hearingin this Court,the matteris adjournedto lO'^ September,2015.
Interim order to continue.
APRIL 08, 2015 bp
SIDDmiRTHMRIDUL,J --<2^1 •q'n<s])2
iovU)
$-5
VARSHA Petitioner
Through MrJayant K.Sud & Mr.C.P.Nautiyal, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Through Mr.RahulMehra, Standingcounsel with Mr.Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Ady. Insp. Lalit Pawar, PS Kamla Market
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORDER
% 10.09.2015
Hon'ble Judge is on leave today. Renotify on 27.11.2015.
By order
Court Master
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 ab
—Cat. MR 9335^,3 Ad' _ 3^"^^ OisL^ol/iry/s//^
$-8
VARSHA Petitioner Through:Mr. Jayant K.Sud with Mr.C.P.Nautiyal, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Jamal Akhtar with Mr.Sanjay Bahadur for Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORDER
%
27.11.2015
As prayed for on behalf of the parties, renotify on 25'*^ February,
Interim orders to continue.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
NOVEMBER 27, 2015 Bisht .— cxSi~f ^'S csLc-cj^ tc>.r^ T
$-13, 37 to 40
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, SC (Criminal) with Mr. Sanyog Bahadur and Mr. Shekhar Budakoti, Advocate + W.P.(CRL) 1125/2012 & CRL.M.A.13871/2012 SHAMSHAD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amitabh Narendra, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, SC (Criminal) with Mr. Sanyog Bahadur and Mr. Shekhar Budakoti, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, SC (Criminal) with Mr. Sanyog Bahadur and Mr. Shekhar Budakoti, Advocate
r
vM
Through: Mr. Amitabh Narendra, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, SC (Criminal) with Mr. Sanyog Bahadur and Mr. Shekhar Budakoti, Advocate
BABY Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amitabh Narendra, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI 8c ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, SC (Criminal) with Mr. Sanyog Bahadur and Mr. Shekhar Budakoti, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
ORDER
% 25.02.2016
The Hon'ble Judge is on leave today.
Renotify on 01.08.2016.
BY ORDER
COURT MASTER
FEBRUARY 25, 2016 ciyv
Of f 01A
(f
r
$~R-2 and 3
HASEENA Appellant Represented by: Mr. C.P. Nautiyal, Advocate. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Padam Singh, PS Kamla Market. + W.P.(CRL) 962/2013 and CrI.M.A.No.9335/2015 VARSHA Petitioner Represented by: Mr. C.P. Nautiyal, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Represented by: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for the State SI Padam Singh, PS Kamla Market. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 16.05.2016
Learned proxy counsel for the appellant states that the arguing counselis not availableand would addressargumentson 17^ May, 2016. Matter to remain on the Board.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 16,2016/'vn'
$~R-2 & 3
| + | CRL.A. 1026/2013 and Crl.M.B.No.3 HASEENA Representedby: versus |
293/2015 Appellant Mr.K.K.Sud,Sr.Advocatewith Mr.C.P.Nautiyal and Mr.Honey Khanna, Advocates. |
|---|---|---|
| STATE(NCTOFDELHI) Representedby: |
Respondent Mr.RaviNayak,APPforthe State with SI Padam Singh, PS Kamla Market. |
|
| + | W.P.(CRL) 962/2013and CrI.M.A. | No.9335/2013 |
| VARSHA Representedby: versus |
Petitioner Mr.K.K.Sud,Sr.Advocatewith Mr.C.P.Nautiyal and Mr.Honey Khanna, Advocates. . |
|
| GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Representedby: CORAM: |
Respondents Mr.AdityaSwampAgarwal, Advocate for Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for State with SI Padam Singh, PS Kamla Market. |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER % 17.05.2016
W.P.(CRL) 962/2013 and Crl.M.A.No.9335/2013
Act, 1956 (in short 'ITP Act') passed on the order on sentence dated 6til June, 2013 in Sessions Case No.77/12 arising out of case FIR No.136/09 and directions not to carry out forcible eviction of the petitioner.
CRL.A. 1026/2013 and CrI.M.B.No.3293/2015
At request of learned counsel for the appellant matter be retained on the Board.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 17,2016
'vn'
CRL.A. 1026/2013 and W.P.(CRL) 962/2013
Page 2 of2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging the vires of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 stand dismissed in light of the Division Bench decision in Nitu.
Whether the challenge to the validity of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 requires further consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nitu & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.Relied on¶248
226 (2016) DLT 457 (DB) Nitu & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Varsha
Shamsad
Sujata
Sunita
Baby
Ganga Devi
MANMOHAN SINGH
HIMA KOHLI
VEENA BIRBAL
PRATIBHA RANI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
