GAURAV JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 15, 1989

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Public interest litiga- tion-School admission for children of prostitutes-Plea for separate schools and hostels-Rejected-Committee set up to examine all aspects of the problems and to submit report. c This writ petition bas been filed pleading for separate schools and hostels for the children of prostitutes.

On behalf of respondents, it was contended that since they are in fact unwanted children of prostitutes it is in the interest of such children D and the society at large that they are segregated from their mothers and be allowed to mingle with others and become part of the society.

Setting up a Committee consisting of 4 Advocates and 3 Social Workers to look into the matter and directing listing of the matter on receipt of the Committee's report, this Court. E

2. The Committee now set up will look into the problems and G submit its report within 8 weeks. [1750 I

[This Court directed the Ministry of Welfare, Dept!. of Women & Child Development functioning under the Union of India to deposit '! sum of Rs.20,000 within two weeks to meet the expenses of the CommitteeI. H

p. 174 Copy page pinpoint

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. A 824 of 1988.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

V.C. Mahajan, Gaurav Jain, and Ms. Abha Jain for the B Petitioner.

Anil Dev Singh, I. Makwana, Rathin Das, K.R. NafI!biar, Ms. A. Subhashini, A.M. Khanvilkar, A.S. Bhasme, R.K. Mehta, V. Krishnamurthy, S.K. Agnihotri, A.V. Rangam, Mahabir' Singh and P .K. Pillai for the Respondents. c \ The Order of the Court. was delivered by 1~ MISRA, J. This ·application under Art. 32 of the Constitution is at the instance of an advocate by way of a public interest litigation D asking for dire.ction to the respondents for making provision of sepa- rate 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. E Though Mr. Mahajan for the petitioner has pleaded that sepa- 1rate schools and hostels be raised for the children of the prostitutes, we i are not inclined to accept the submission. Segregating prostitute

children by locating separate schools and providing separate hostels, in F · 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 inspite 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 childre~ of prostitutes should ' be segregated from their mothers and be allowed to mingle iith oth,ers - ·and become-part of the society. In fact, counsel appearinglfor several O 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.

ChildreQ of prostitutes should, however, not be permitted to live in inferno and the undesirable surroundings of prostitute, homes. This

GAURAV JAIN v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.J 175

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 prostitute children it is necessary that accommodation in hostels and other reformatory homes should be adequately available to help segre- gation of these children from their mothers living in prostitute homes as soon as they are identified. B 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. We ate of the view that instead of disposing of this writ petition c 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 D th!: 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:

1Copy pinpoint1. Mr. V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate, New Delhi. E

2Copy pinpoint2. Mr. R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, New Delhi. F

3Copy pinpoint3. Mr. M._N. Shroff, Advocate-on-Record, He shall act as the New Delhi. convenor.

4Copy pinpoint4. Mr. R.K. Mehta, Advocate-on-Record, New Delhi. G

5Copy pinpoint5. Dr.DeepaDas, Women's Studies'& Development Centre, Chhatra Marg, University of Delhi, Delhi-110 007. H

p. 176 Copy page pinpoint

6Copy pinpoint6. Smt. Sarla Mudgal, Kalyani, 5030, Kalidas Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002. B

7Copy pinpoint7. Smt. Krishna Mukherji, All Bengal Women's Union, Research & Development Committee, 89, Elliott Road, Calcutta-700 016.

c 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. I D The matter shall be listed on 16th January, 1990 (Tuesday) for further orders after the r~port is received.