- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gaurav Jain v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
An advocate filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions to create separate schools with vocational training facilities and separate hostels for children of prostitutes. The Court issued notice not only to the named respondents but, on its own initiative, to all States and Union Territories. Several of these governmental entities responded and filed affidavits.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should direct the establishment of separate schools and hostels exclusively for children of prostitutes.
- What interim measures are appropriate to safeguard the welfare of these children pending a comprehensive solution.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Requested the creation of dedicated schools and hostels for children of prostitutes to facilitate vocational training and education.
States’/Respondents’ Arguments
- Opposed the idea of separate schools and hostels, contending that segregation would not serve the best interests of the children.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected the plea for separate educational and residential facilities, reasoning that segregation would isolate the children rather than integrate them into mainstream society. The Justices emphasized that children of prostitutes should mingle with others to become part of society and should not remain in the “inferno and undesirable surroundings” of brothel homes, especially young girls who risk being inducted into prostitution.
Recognizing the complexity of the problem and the ineffectiveness of issuing immediate, broad directions, the Court determined that a specialized committee should be constituted to study the issue comprehensively. The committee’s mandate includes examining relevant laws, assessing practical solutions, and submitting recommendations within eight weeks. The Court named seven individuals, including senior advocates and social activists, to serve on this committee, designating Mr. M.N. Shroff as convenor.
To fund the committee’s work, the Union of India was ordered to deposit Rs 20,000 with the Court within two weeks.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The prayer for establishing separate schools and hostels for children of prostitutes is rejected. Instead, the Court constitutes a seven-member committee to study the issue and provide recommendations; the Union of India must deposit Rs 20,000 to cover initial expenses, and the matter will be listed on 16 January 1990 for further orders.
Implications: No immediate directives were issued to create segregated facilities. The decision signals the Court’s preference for integrative welfare measures over segregation and delegates further fact-finding and policy formulation to an expert committee, postponing final relief until the committee’s report is reviewed. No new legal precedent was established beyond the procedural mechanism adopted.
Order
1. This application under Article 32 of the Constitution is at the instance of an advocate by way of a public interest litigation asking for direction to the respondents for making provision of separate schools with vocational training facilities and separate hostels for children of prostitutes. Notice was issued not only to the original respondents but at the instance of the court also to all the States and the Union Territories. Many of them have responded and affidavits have been filed by way of return to the rule nisi.
2. Though Mr Mahajan for the petitioner has pleaded that separate schools and hostels be raised for the children of the prostitutes, we are not inclined to accept the submission. Segregating children of prostitute by locating separate schools and providing separate hostels, in our opinion, would not be in the interest of such children. It is said that prostitutes do not want to have children and ordinarily when children are born to them it is in spite of their desire not to rear children. But once such children are born to them, it is in the interest of such children and of society at large that the children of prostitutes should be segregated from their mothers and be allowed to mingle with others and become part of the society. In fact, counsel appearing for several States have stated at the bar the same way. We, therefore, reject the prayer for locating separate schools and hostels for children of the prostitutes.
3. Children of prostitutes should, however, not be permitted to live in inferno and the undesirable surroundings of prostitute homes. This is particularly so for young girls whose body and mind are likely to be abused with growing age for being admitted into the profession of their mothers. While we do not accept the plea for separate hostels for children of prostitute it is necessary that accommodation in hostels and other reformatory homes should be adequately available to help segregation of these children from their mothers living in prostitute homes as soon as they are identified.
4. Legislation has been brought to control prostitution. Prostitution has, however, been on the increase and what was once restricted to certain areas of human habitation has now spread into several localities. The problem has, therefore, become one of serious nature and requires considerable and effective attention.
5. We are of the view that instead of disposing of this writ petition with a set of directions, a committee should be constituted to examine the material aspects of the problem and submit a report containing recommendations to the court on the basis of which further orders can be made. We accordingly direct that a committee for such purpose shall be set up and it shall examine the matter from various angles of the problem taking into consideration the different laws relevant to the matter and place its report before the court within eight weeks from now. The committee shall consist of:
1. Mr V.C Mahajan, Senior Advocate, New Delhi. 2. Mr R.K Jain, Senior Advocate, New Delhi. 3. Mr M.N Shroff, Advocate-on-Record, New Delhi. He shall act as the convenor. 4. Mr R.K Mehta, Advocate-on-Record, New Delhi. 5. Dr Deepa Das, Women's Studies & Development Centre, Chhatra Marg, University of Delhi, Delhi - 110 007 6. Smt. Sarla Mudgal, Kalyani, 5030, Kalidas Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002. 7. Smt. Krishna Mukherji, All Bengal Women's Union, Research & Development Committee, 89, Elliott Road, Calcutta-700 016.
6. The Union of India in the Ministry of Welfare, Department of Women & Child Development is directed to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs 20,000 for the present within two weeks to meet the expenses.
7. The matter shall be listed on January 16, 1990 (Tuesday) for further orders after the report is received.
Alert