The case was initiated suo motu by the Delhi High Court taking into consideration a newspaper report about a destitute woman who died on a busy street after giving birth to a girl who was struggling for life at a foster home.
After an initial hearing, the Court immediately issued directions to the Delhi State Government to set up:
(a) five shelter homes exclusively for destitute, pregnant and lactating women;
(b) a helpline to manage availability;
(c) food and medical facilities available 24 hours a day in the shelters;
(d) programs to spread information about the shelters aired on radio and television to reach the illiterate;
(e) awareness camps every fortnight;
(f) mobile medical units to bring people to the shelters;
(g) ways to involve civil society organizations in the shelter program.
The Court noted that the State Government had not fulfilled the Court’s directions. After reviewing the affidavits of the Union of India, the State Government and the Amicus Curiae, the Court noted that the existing shelters referred to in their affidavits were not funded by the State government, did not provide sufficient services and did not intend to expand their list of services in the future, as it was beyond their functioning capacity when considering the large number of poor migrants from neighboring states every year. Therefore, the medical facilities provided for destitute, pregnant and lactating women were inadequate.
The Court indicated that it was unwilling to be a “silent spectator” to the government’s inaction which led to the death of destitute pregnant women and lactating women on the streets of Delhi. Recognizing that this would be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and liberty), the Court ordered the State Government to demarcate, hire or create at least two shelters to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future and to file a proper and comprehensive affidavit within a period of four weeks.
Thereafter, an affidavit was filed by the Women Empowerment Cell stating that State guidelines on care facilities within shelter homes for women were being drafted by YWCA in consultation with the Court appointed Amicus Curiae and that YWCA-run-shelter homes are functional. The affidavit also indicated that a public campaign was being undertaken to spread awareness about shelter homes for pregnant and lactating destitute women.
The Court declared that the foster home where the girl child resided was free to give the girl child on adoption within the parameters of law and directed that the child be conferred all the benefits that are available under government schemes for children.
The Court also revised its direction of setting up five shelter homes to setting up of three shelter homes. It noted that two homes had already been set up in collaboration with YWCA.
It directed that the third home be established within a period of four months in an area that is acceptably accessible to destitute pregnant and lactating women. The Court disposed the case leaving a door open for revisiting the case by stating that a petition may be filed in the future to set up of more shelter homes if such need arises.