Public interest litigations require credible evidence to substantiate claims; mere allegations without proof are insufficient for judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner-Dogra Sangthan, Janipur, Jammu, through the medium of this writ petition, filed as Public Interest Litigation asserting that the petitioner’s organization works for some social causes, such as, child abuse, bonded labor and women empowerment etc., alleged that the centre/ashram of Adhyatmik Vishva Vidyalaya under the garb of providing spiritual path to enlightenment have been running shady and illegal activities and the respondent No. 9- Virender Dev Dikshit, who claims to be a god man and manager of the Adhyatmik Vidyalaya, is absconding from police authorities as there were some news that he had been running illegal activities to the extent of prostitution in his centres/ashrams; that some strange activities of the centre of Adhyatmik Vishva Vidyalaya in Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu were also noticed by petitioner-NGO, such as, continuous arrival and departure of strange boys and girls, who used to stay in the centre for a day or two and when the petitioner’s organization expressed its desire to visit the centre to see the situation of the women living in the centre, the same was bluntly denied and on a close investigation, it was found that the centre has even kept some girls from different states as hostages keeping them intoxicated and some sources even revealed that those girls are being used for flesh trade under the supervision of some elderly women; that the petitioner-NGO also visited Dayalachak Centre/Ashram and similar activities were noticed there and even the locals complained something wrong going on within the walls of the centre, wherein no one is allowed to enter; that a women team of the NGO who visited the centre was met with hostile atmosphere and was abused by the manager of the centre; that the centres are built within the big walls like jails so that nobody can watch their activities from outside.

2. It was alleged that under the patronage of respondent No. 9 and afraid of his influence and might, the aggrieved families met the NGO women team and gave an example that an unmarried Ayurvedic doctor at the age of 25 years was made hostage in the centre for the last 15 years, who has now crossed the age of 40 years and she has not been released as yet; another fourteen years old girl whose parents have been brain-washed, is not being allowed to leave the ashram, besides some other girls; that the girls of the centre are rotated in all the centres across India to keep the anonymity of the women therein intact; that the women inside are kept in very pathetic condition with no proper facilities and have been indoctrinated by the officials of centre to believe the respondent No. 9 as incarnation of Lord Krishna and the women are supposed to be his Gopis, who have to surrender themselves completely to the master i.e. respondent No. 9; that the petitioner- NGO had taken up the matter with the police officials in this regard but due to the influence of respondent No. 9 no action was taken.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop of the allegations, the petitioner’s organization has prayed this Court to direct a thorough court- monitored investigation into various activities being carried out in various centres of respondent No. 9; direct an inspection of the centres/premises of respondent No. 9 through concerned District Magistrate and subsequently file a detailed report with regard to living conditions of the women therein; direct the immediate release of the inmates of the centres and handing over them to Nari Niketan wherein they can be taken care of free from the hostile influence of the agents of respondent No. 9; direct sealing of both the centres/ashrams of respondent No.9 and lastly direct the respondent No. 12-State Women Commission, Jammu, to come up with a detailed report to the concerned authorities on measures which can be taken to prevent similar ashrams from carrying out any illegal activities in their centres.

4. Pursuant to notice, the respondent No. 10 and 11 who have been shown as managers of