Primary tabs


El caso llegó hasta la Corte Suprema de la India por vía de una apelación contra la sentencia de un Alto Tribunal de Bombay que revocaba la prohibición por parte del gobierno de Maharashtra de los espectáculos de danza en bares en todo el territorio estatal. La prohibición data de agosto de 2005 y vedaba “todo tipo de danza” en un “local gastronómico, espacio con licencia para vender bebidas alcohólicas o bar”, pero excluía espectáculos de danza en hoteles de tres o más estrellas, y otros establecimientos de primer nivel.

El caso fue presentado por seis embarazadas o lactantes que vivían en la pobreza en un asentamiento informal de Delhi. Se les habían negado raciones de alimentos y beneficios de asistencia médica prenatal e infantil a los que tenían derecho conforme a varios programas de beneficios nacionales, lo cual se puede atribuir a que el gobierno de Delhi no había puesto a disposición tarjetas de racionamiento y no había implementado ciertos programas de salud maternal.

This case came before the Supreme Court of India, on appeal, against a Bombay High Court verdict striking down the Maharashtra government’s statewide ban on dance performances in bars. The ban dates back to August 2005, and prohibited ‘any type of dancing' in an "eating house, permit room or beer bar", but made an exception for dance performances in three stars hotels and above, and other elite establishments. The State justified the ban by asserting that bar dancing corrupts morals, fuels trafficking and prostitution, and causes exploitation of women bar dancers.

This case was brought by six pregnant or lactating women who lived in poverty in a Delhi slum.  The women were denied food rations, as well as prenatal and children health benefits which they were entitled to under several national benefit programs.

The petitioner, Lakshmi Kant Pandey, an attorney, wrote to the Supreme Court (Court) alleging neglect and malpractice on the part of social organizations and private adoption agencies facilitating the adoption of Indian children to foreign parents.  He noted the long and hazardous journeys these children made to foreign countries, along with instances of neglect they experienced from their adoptive parents resulting in impoverishment or sexual exploitation of the children.

This case concerns the historic Hawala scandal in India, which uncovered possible bribery payments to several high-ranking Indian politicians and bureaucrats from a funding source linked to suspected terrorists.

This public interest litigation case (PIL) was filed via Article 32 of the Indian Constitution directly before the Supreme Court of India and petitioned the Court to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to take steps to end child labor. Thereafter a Court-appointed committee reported the enormity of child exploitation in UP’s carpet industry, finding that many children were kidnapped from Bihar, that the industry largely employed minor children under 14 years, and that many experienced physical abuse. 

Rudul Sah was arrested in 1953 on charges of murdering his wife. He was acquitted by an Additional Sessions Judge, in 1968, who directed his release from jail, pending further orders. Rudul Sah languished in jail for 14 years after his acquittal, until his plight was highlighted in the media in 1982 and led to the filing of the PIL on his behalf.

Tras un informe periodístico sobre una mujer indigente que falleció en una calle muy concurrida cuatro días después de dar a luz a una beba, el Tribunal abrió esta causa de interés público por iniciativa propia. El Tribunal solicitó a la organización Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), un miembro de la Red-DESC, que presentara amicus sobre la situación en Delhi de la salud de las mujeres indigentes embarazadas y que se encuentran en el período de lactancia, y que sugiera medidas adecuadas.

Following a newspaper report regarding a destitute woman who died on a busy street four days after giving birth to a baby girl, the Court brought this public interest litigation (PIL) on its own motion. The Court also asked the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), an ESCR-Net member organization, to file an amicus brief on the status of maternal health for destitute pregnant and lactating women in Delhi, and to suggest appropriate remedies. HRLN’s amicus outlined myriad state failures to implement government schemes providing for food and health services to women and marginalized groups.