ORDER WP (C) No. 559 of 1994 1. By our order dated 1-11-2000t, we had called upon all the State Governments and Union Territories, through their respective counsel to furnish information with regard to steps taken for creation of more courts and appointment of judicial officers; for filling up of existing vacancies in the subordinate judiciary; about construction of new court buildings and providing of infrastructure for those courts. Four weeks' time was granted to learned counsel for the State Governments and the Union Territories to furnish the requisite information on affidavits. More than four months have gone by. The States of Assam, Goa, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal besides the Union Territories of Chandigarh, Andaman & Nicobar, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry and NCT of Delhi have not filed their responses so far. No explanation, whatsoever, is forthcoming for this lapse on the part of the State Governments and the Union Territories. This callous indifference of the States in not furnishing the information, asked for by this Court, is highly objectionable. Speedy trial has been held by this Court to be a fundamental right of the undertrials. Because of existing vacancies and shortage of Judges, this right is being frustrated. The Governments do not appear to be realising their responsibilities in spite of the concern voiced by us. We take serious note of it. As a last opportunity, we grant five weeks' further time to the defaulting State Governments and the Union Territories to furnish the information asked for. All the State Governments and the Union Territories, who are in default shall, however, deposit a sum of ~5000 each, by way of costs in this Registry for the lapse committed by them in not furnishing the information within the prescribed time. If the information is not furnished within the next five weeks, as directed above, on the next date of hearing the Home Secretaries of each of the State Governments and the Union Territories, who remain in default, shall be personally present to explain the conduct of their Government. 2. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Chief Secretaries of every State and Union Territory by the Registry. 3. 2. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Chief Secretaries of every State and Union Territory by the Registry. 3. The Standing Counsel for Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal are also directed to furnish information asked for in the order of the Court dated 1-11-2000 within the next five weeks. 4. List for directions on 2-5-2001. IAs Nos. 1 and 7 5. Concerned by the plight of little children who have, perforce, to stay in jails with their mothers, on account of arrest of their mothers for certain criminal offences, we had on 1-1l-2000t directed that copies of IAs Nos. I and 7, together with other relevant record, be sent to the learned Solicitor General to examine the matter and assist the Court. Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Solicitor General is present in response. 6. The learned Solicitor General shares the concern of the Court and submits that with a view to frame some guidelines and issue instructions, it would be necessary to first ascertain the number of female prisoners in each of the jails, in each of the States/Union Territories, the offences for which they have been arrested; the duration of their detention as also if there are any children with any of those female prisoners who are also lodged in jail. It is submitted that after this information is available only then we would be able to proceed further in the matter. We find force in this submission. 7. We, therefore, direct learned counsel appearing for each of the States and Union Territories to disclose on affidavit within four weeks. (i) The number of female prisoners (undertrial) together with the nature of offence for which they have been detained. (ii) Period of their detention. (iii) Children, if any, who are with their mothers lodged in the jail. (iv) Number of convicted female prisoners and whether any children are also lodged with such convicts in the jails. (v) Whether any facilities are available in the jail concerned for taking care of such children and, if so, the type of facilities. 8. The Registry shall, on receipt of the affidavits, furnish a copy of the same both to the learned Solicitor General and the learned amicus. 9. IAs Nos. 1 and 7 shall also be listed for orders on 2-5-2001; IA No.4 10. 8. The Registry shall, on receipt of the affidavits, furnish a copy of the same both to the learned Solicitor General and the learned amicus. 9. IAs Nos. 1 and 7 shall also be listed for orders on 2-5-2001; IA No.4 10. In our order of 16-12-1999, we had traced the history Of confinement of an unfortunate prisoner, Shri Ajoy Ghosh. Thereafter, we have made various other orders concerning his case from time to time. On 29-11-2000, being of the view that there may be many prisoners like Ajoy Ghosh, languishing in different jails of this country, we had invited suggestions from learned amicus as well as from learned counsel for the State of West Bengal to issue guidelines to ensure that detenus like Ajoy Ghosh do not suffer in the manner in which Ajoy Ghosh had suffered. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisting the Court as amicus has filed a note of suggestions. Learned counsel for the State of West Bengal submits that he has no quarrel with the suggestions made by the learned amicus and that those suggestions may be accepted and follow-up action taken. 11. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel submits that he would like to amend this note by also highlighting the provisions of "the Mental Health Act, 1987" which has replaced "the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912". We permit him to file the amended note of suggestions within two weeks. 12. Before we consider the matter any further it appears appropriate to us to direct that a copy of the note of suggestions to be filed by Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned arnicus, shall be sent to the Home Secretary of each State and Union Territory with a direction that the Home Secretary concerned shall file response to the suggestions made, as also offer any other suggestions, which they would like to be considered by this Court, on an affidavit of a competent person, within eight weeks from the date of service of the note of suggestions on the Home Secretary concerned. 13. 13. A copy of the note of suggestions (amended) shall also be sent to the Registrar General of each one of the High Courts for placing the same before the Hon'b1e the Chief Justice of that High Court with a request that any suggestion or response to the suggestions made by the learned amicus may be sent to this Court within eight weeks from the date of service of the copy of the note of suggestions on the Registrar General concerned. 14. List for directions in the last week of July 2001 on a date to be fixed in consultation with the learned amicus. Crl A No. 69 of 2000 15. List along with the writ petition. Court Masters