Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.
Gaurav Jain, Petitioner v. Union of India and others, Respondents
Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 824 of 1988, D/-15-11-1989.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Jain with him, for Petitioner; Mr. Anil Dev Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. I. Makwana, Mr. Rathin Das, Mr. K.R. Nambiar, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mr. A. M. Khanvilkar, Mr. A. S. Bhasme, Mr. R.K. Mehta, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Mr. S. K. Agnihotri, Mr. A. V. Rangam, Mr. Mahabir Singh and Mr. P. K. Pillai with him, for Respondents.
- as held in the case of Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 292, children of prostitutes should not be permitted to live in inferno and the undesirable surroundings of prostitute homes. While the Supreme Court did not accept the plea for separate hostels for prostitute children but felt necessary that accommodations in hostels and other reformatory homes should be adequately be available to help segregation of these children from their mothers living in prostitute homes as soon as they are identified.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized without referencing specific case law citations:
The case involves a Public Interest Litigation concerning the welfare of children born to prostitutes, emphasizing the importance of their rights and social integration [judgement_subject].
The petitioner, through an advocate, sought directions for establishing separate schools with vocational training facilities and separate hostels for children of prostitutes (!) .
The Court considered the proposal for segregating these children into separate institutions but ultimately rejected this idea, emphasizing that such segregation would not be in the best interest of the children [1000221840001].
The Court acknowledged that children of prostitutes should not be allowed to live in the undesirable and harmful environment of prostitute homes, especially to prevent abuse and exploitation as they grow older [1000221840002].
It was highlighted that legislation exists to control prostitution, but despite these efforts, the problem persists and has become more widespread, requiring serious and effective attention [1000221840003].
The Court decided to establish a committee to examine the issues comprehensively, including the relevant laws and social factors, and to submit a report with recommendations within eight weeks [1000221840004].
The committee was constituted with specific members, including advocates, social workers, and experts, to ensure a thorough review of the problem (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court directed the relevant government department to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000 within two weeks to cover the expenses of the committee's work (!) .
The matter was scheduled for further hearing after the committee's report was received, with the next date set for a specific future date (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the need for social measures to protect children of prostitutes, balancing social integration with safeguards against exploitation and abuse, while avoiding unnecessary segregation [judgement_subject].
Please let me know if you'd like a more detailed elaboration or specific legal implications.
Judgment
This application under Art. 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 prostitute children 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 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.
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,,
Womens 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 Womens 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 16th January, 1990 (Tuesday) for further orders after the report is received.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1990 SC 292
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
