"No Doors To Toilets, This Has To Be Set Right": High Court Asks Delhi Govt To Consider Taking Over Ashram Housing Women In 'Animal-Like' Conditions

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed Standing Counsel SK Tripathi, to seek instructions from the Department of Women and Child Development of the Delhi government and inform whether it is willing to take over Adhyatmik Vidyalaya, a spiritual ashram in Rohini led by absconding self-styled godman Virendra Dev Dixit, allegedly housing over 100 women in "animal-like" conditions.

"Even bathrooms don't have doors, that's the state of affairs. And this is going on in the capital, it's shocking! This has to be set right. This institution needs to be taken over by you," a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla remarked orally.

The Bench was of the prima facie view that the institute is functioning in violation of the Women's and Children's Institutions (Licensing) Act, 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder.

"A perusal of the aforesaid Act prima facie shows that it is attracted and applicable to the Respondent institute. The object of this Act is laudable, i.e. to protect women and children in institutions established and maintained for the reception, care, protection and welfare of women or children.

It appears that the Respondent institute is not complying with provisions of the Rules framed thereunder which oblige the Superintended or any other person in-charge of the institution to meet the inmates, hear their complaints, and see that each inmate is provided with proper food, clothing, bedding and such other amenities that she may be entitled to."

It added that the Act is on the face of it, applicable to all institutions housing women and children, including religious and minority institutions.

"We Are Aghast": Delhi High Court Issues Show Cause Notice To Ashram Allegedly Confining Over 100 Girls In 'Animal-Like' Conditions

The Court took note of the report filed by Advocate Nandita Rao, pursuant to an inspection conducted on High Court's order dated December 19, 2017. The report, as per the Court, displays a "shocking state of affairs" which was prevailing in the institution.

As per Rao, there are even no doors to the internal cubicles of the toilets and only a single door exists for a group of toilets. She also expressed apprehensions about the health of inmates, indicating that they may be under the influence of drugs/ narcotic substances. They are completely confined behind metal grills with no access to sunlight and even their sleeping area is monitored.

In such circumstances, the Bench proposed to direct take over of the institution by the Delhi government.

The counsel appearing for the absconding godman however, vehemently objected to the aforesaid averments. He claimed that that rights of the institute are protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and any such take over by the State would result in violation of fundamental rights.

Rejecting this submission, the Bench observed,

"We are clear in our mind that no minority institution gets a license to conduct its affairs so as to violate fundamental rights of an individual, particularly right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. It is on the State to ensure that infraction of such rights is prevented and remedied."

The Bench clarified that it is not for a moment suggesting that the Respondent institution and its inmates should not profess their spiritual and religious beliefs.

"They are free to do that, so long as they don't contravene any law or constitutional provision. Even if GNCTD were to take over the institution and appoint an administrator, the freedom of the inmates to exercise their religious and spiritual rights would not be infracted," it added.

The bench also inquired from the counsel, as to who had authorized his appearance, since the self-styled godman has been on the run.

The matter is now listed on April 25, for further hearing and passing of necessary orders.

Case Title: DUMPALA MEENAVATHI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. along with FOUNDATION FOR SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.