High CourtDivision BenchWrit petition disposed of with directions to co...

Gaurav Jain v. Union of India and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Writ Petition (Civil) No. A 824 of 1988.

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Ranganath Misra
  • M. N. Venkatachaliah
  • P. B. Sawant
Judgment Date
1989-11-15
Court Decision / Holding
The Court refused the prayer for separate schools and hostels for children of prostitutes, and directed the constitution of a Committee to examine the issues from various angles and submit a report within eight weeks. It also ordered the Union of India to deposit Rs. 20,000 to cover the Committee's expenses and listed the matter for further orders on 16 January 1990.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions to constitute a Committee to examine the problem and report within eight weeks; the Union of India directed to deposit Rs. 20,000; no order for separate schools/hostels; matter to be listed on 16 January 1990.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Gaurav Jain

Respondents

  • Union of India and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. C. Mahajan
  • • Gaurav Jain
  • • Ms. Abha Jain

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Anil Dev Singh
  • • I. Makwana
  • • Rathin Das
  • • K.R. Naflbiar
  • • Ms. A. Subhashini
  • • A.M. Khanvilkar
  • • A.S. Bhasme
  • • R.K. Mehta
  • • V. Krishnamurthy
  • • S.K. Agnihotri
  • • A.V. Rangam
  • • Mahabir' Singh
  • • P .K. Pillai

Case Synopsis & Summary

Public Interest Litigation challenges proposals for separate schools and hostels for the children of prostitutes. The Supreme Court notes the gravity of prostitution’s social consequences and holds that segregation of prostitute children would not serve their welfare or that of society. It observes that separate schools and hostels would stigmatize and isolate these children and that exposing them to the environment of prostitution when they reach school age could be harmful. The Court emphasizes that the children should not be permitted to live in the 'inferno' and the undesirable surroundings of prostitute homes, particularly to shield young girls from potential abuse as they grow. However, it recognises the need to address their protection and rehabilitation. Rather than ordering exclusive institutions, the Court directs the creation of a Committee to examine the problem from multiple angles, including relevant laws, and to submit a report within eight weeks. The Committee includes senior advocates, a lawyer on record, social workers, and a women's studies expert, with a convenor to be designated. The Union of India is directed to deposit Rs. 20,000 to meet the Committee’s expenses, and the matter is to be listed for further orders after receipt of the report. The Court stresses that the goal is to prevent exploitation and promote integration rather than segregation, leaving room for future orders based on the Committee's findings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition sought directions for separate schools and hostels with vocational facilities for the children of prostitutes, arguing that such measures would provide protection and opportunities while facilitating social integration and preventing harm from the environments in which these children are born and raised. It emphasizes welfare, rehabilitation, and the need to consider the various laws affecting prostitution and child welfare; it urges the Court to adopt proactive steps rather than punitive segregation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the children of prostitutes are, in effect, unwanted; segregation from their mothers and preventing contact with prostitutes would serve the best interests of the children and protect society, arguing that separate institutions would promote stigma, isolation, and hindrance to social integration. They proposed focusing on broader welfare measures rather than creating exclusive schools or hostels.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Gaurav Jain v. Union of India and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

GAURAV JAIN _v._ UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 15, 1989 [RANGANATH MISRA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) _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._ This writ petition bas been filed pleading for separate schools and hostels for the children of prostitutes. A B # c 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 HELD: 1. Children of prostitutes should not be permitted to live in inferno and the undesirable surroundin.gs of prostitute homes. This is partitularly 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 separate schools and hostels for prostitute children are p not desirable, accommodation in hostels and other reformatory homes should be adequately made available to help segregation of these children from their mothers living in prostitute homes as soon as they are identified. [174H; 17SA-B) 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 Committee I. H 173 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. A 824 of 1988. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 1~ **B** ## c V.C. Mahajan, Gaurav Jain, and Ms. Abha Jain for the 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. \ The Order of the Court. was delivered by **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 1 rate 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 **H** 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 segregation of these children from their mothers living in prostitute homes as soon as they are identified. 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 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 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: 1. Mr. V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate, New Delhi. 2. Mr. R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, New Delhi. A B # c D E F G H 3. Mr. M._N. Shroff, Advocate-on-Record, New Delhi. 4. Mr. R.K. Mehta, Advocate-on-Record, New Delhi. 5. Dr.DeepaDas, Women's Studies'& Development Centre, Chhatra Marg, University of Delhi, Delhi-110 007. He shall act as the **convenor.** 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. A 6. Smt. Sarla Mudgal, Kalyani, 5030, Kalidas Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002. B # c 7. Smt. Krishna Mukherji, All Bengal Women's Union, Research & Development Committee, 89, Elliott Road, Calcutta-700 016. 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. G.N.