Back
Cites , Refuses to Direct Woman to Leave Ashram
The on Thursday declined to interfere with an adult woman’s decision to reside at the in Rohini, despite her parents’ pleas that she was being illegally confined and subjected to drug abuse. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia emphasized that the court cannot compel any individual to live at a particular place against their will, as such a direction would violate the to guaranteed under of the .
“She is an adult. Can the Court direct someone to go to a particular place or not to go? Be it her parents, in-laws or her husband or wife? Will it not be against ? The guarantees her certain freedom, that includes freedom to move. Can we restrict her freedom?” the Bench observed, setting the tone for a ruling that prioritised individual autonomy over parental concerns.
The Petition and Preliminary Inquiry
The case originated from a -style petition filed by the parents, Dumpala Meenavathi and another, alleging that their daughter had gone missing and was being unlawfully detained at the ashram. They claimed that the ashram’s founder, Virender Dev Dixit, had refused to allow them a video call with her. When a call was eventually permitted, the parents alleged that their daughter appeared severely weak, with blackened gums, and that she was malnourished — symptoms they attributed to forced drug abuse.
On , the court directed the to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Police subsequently visited the ashram and interacted with the woman and other inmates. The inquiry report revealed that the woman was residing at the ashram of her own free will since , driven by her spiritual inclination. “She has further stated that she is residing there without any fear or . In view of the statement, nothing needs to be adjudicated in this application,” the court noted while disposing of the parents’ application.
Autonomy vs. Allegations
The parents’ counsel argued that the inmates, including the woman, were “severely brainwashed and indoctrinated.” However, the court found no supporting statement from the woman herself. “What can be done about it? There is no such statement by the inmate. She states that she is living there on her own will and is highly educated,” the Chief Justice remarked, underscoring that the court cannot act on unsubstantiated claims when the individual affirms her choice.
Advocate , standing counsel for the Delhi government, confirmed that the woman was present in the ashram and that all residents were adults. The court also noted that the police had not only visited the premises but also interacted with inmates, and there were no complaints of restraint. “Unless some individual comes and says I want to go but I have been restricted,” the court stated, refusing to draw adverse inferences from the ashram’s operational opacity alone.
Broader Irregularities Under Scrutiny
Despite rejecting the parents’ immediate plea, the court expressed serious concerns about the ashram’s functioning. The state informed the Bench that the ashram is located in an unauthorised colony and lacks a sanctioned building plan. Its electricity connections were found to be registered under different names, and there was no clarity on who currently runs the ashram or the source of its funding. “The only thing that bothers us is the way it is running. Because it is not run by any organisation, they say that they run it on individual expenses and receive donations for expenses,” the court observed.
These irregularities are not new. In , a petition was filed before the High Court raising larger issues of illegal detention and exploitation at the same ashram. In , a high-powered committee appointed by the court conducted inspections and found several illegalities, including minor girls housed in animal-like conditions with no privacy. A investigation was initiated in on the court’s directions. The parents’ counsel pointed out that despite these measures, the ashram’s alleged unlawful operations continued. However, the Special Public Prosecutor for the informed the court that the founder, Virender Dev Dixit, has since passed away.
Legal Implications and Precedent
The judgment reinforces the constitutional protection of an adult’s right to choose their place of residence, even when that choice conflicts with family expectations. The court’s reliance on (1)(d) — which guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part — serves as a reminder that cannot be curtailed unless by and for .
Legal experts note that this ruling aligns with the ’s consistent stance on individual autonomy, particularly in cases involving adults living in communal or religious settings. The decision also highlights the on petitioners alleging unlawful confinement: without the victim’s own assertion of , courts are unlikely to intervene.
Looking Ahead
While the parents’ application stands disposed of, the court has listed the matter for further hearing on to examine the broader operational irregularities of the ashram. Potential issues include the lack of legal recognition, financial opacity, and the absence of a responsible governing body. The investigation remains ongoing. For now, the woman’s choice — affirmed by her statement to the police — has been respected by the court, upholding a fundamental tenet of constitutional freedom.
