Read Time: 12 minutes

The Division Bench of acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi J. And Navin Chawla J., expressed grave concerns over the alleged confinement of around 162 girls in Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya, a spiritual ashram in Rohini led by one, Virendra Dev Dixit.

The petition has been filed by the parents of the Respondent No.4, who is also one of the residents in the ashram, stating that they have not been allowed to visit their daughter in the ashram, who has recently been complaining of severe back pain. The Petitioners, in the present case, were being represented by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy.

The Petitioners relied upon reports submitted by Advocate Nandita Rao and Swati Maliwal, Chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women, respectively, which were filed in pursuance of an order of the Delhi High Court dated 19.12.2017 in a connected matter [WP(c) No. 13827/2017 titled ‘ Foundation for Social Empowerment v Union of India & Ors.]

Advocate Nandita Rao’s report on the living conditions of the ashram stated that the girls were housed in “animal like conditions” with no privacy and metal gates installed at various places to keep them confined. It also indicated that the girls could be under the influence of drugs/narcotic substances. The Petitioner also relied upon Ms. Swati Paliwal’s report which stated that judging by the physical features of the girls, they mostly appeared to be minors and that the Child Welfare Committee must be called upon to visit the premises and undertake verification process, immediately.

The counsel for the Respondent No.4, i.e., the daughter of the Petitioners, denied the submissions of the Petitioners altogether and quoted the medical report filed by the doctors from AIIMS and IHBAS, which had also filed upon directions of the Delhi High Court in the same connected matter titled ‘Foundation for Social Empowerment v Union of India & Ors’ . The reports submitted by said doctors, while admitting lack of sunlight inside the premises, noted that the living conditions of the ashram were perfectly adequate.

The court objected to the submissions of the counsel for the Respondent No.4, stating that he had no locus to make such averments if he wasn’t representing the institution or the ashram. The court remarked “Who are you to make this averment?”

The counsel submitted that it was the inmates who were running the same without any hierarchy. The counsel further quoted the medical report stating that all the inmates were between the ages of 18 to 85 and that there was no minor inmate residing in the premises. The report further said that all the inmates were living in the ashram out of their own free will and were not under any coercion. The medical report further goes on to say that the ashram allowed relatives of the inmates to visit them regularly.

At this point, the counsel for the Petitioner interjected and drew the court’s attention to the next paragraph of the report, I.e., Para 3(b) titled ‘Findings from individual sessions’ which she alleged the proxy counsel was deliberately omitting to read before the court. Para 3(b) of the report read as follows:-

“(b) Findings from individual session

Individual interviews were also carried out assuring confidentiality and all of them (the inmates) extended good participation. All the inmates consistently echoed the same responses as given in group. In a mechanical manner all of them expressed that ‘we are children of one father (Shiv Baba). We have united to save the world from biggest disaster which is approaching, for which we need maintain sanctity’ "

The Petitioner submitted that it was unusual for 162 people to be mechanically parroting the exact same response in group interviews and individual sessions.

The circumstances of the inmates at the ashram raise further suspicion given the order  dated 04.01.2018 passed the Delhi High Court in connected proceedings, namely WP(c) No. 13827/2017 titled ‘Foundation for Social Empowerment v Union of India & Ors.’, wherein the court has observed as follows:-

“We are informed by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that after filing of the present writ petition, the respondent no.6 is instigating its inmates to lodge false complaints against their relatives to discourage them from pursuing the present litigation as well as the complaints made by them against the respondent no. 5 and 6.

The complaints being filed by inmates years (even decades) after they started living in the respondent no.6 prima facie appear to be not only false but clearly motivated so. As to discourage relatives from pursuing the present writ petition as well as the complaints, which have been lodged against the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

We are informed by Mr. Ajay Verma, Ms. Nandita Rao and Ms. Swati Paliwal, members of the inspection team, that on 10th December 2017, when they had conducted the inspection of the Vijay Vihar premises of the Respondent No.6, they had found bags full of complaints of inmates of the ashram in almost identical language against their close family members”

The court noted that that not only do the reports submitted by Advocate Nandita Rao and  Ms. Swati Maliwal on the one hand and the doctors of AIIMS and IHBAS on the other hand, not gel, they also appear to be completely contradictory. However, the court was of the prima facie opinion that the management of the ashram must be taken over by the Health Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Thus, the High Court has issued show cause notice to the ashram to show cause as to why it shouldn’t be taken over.

Upon the Petitioner’s apprehension of the inmates of the ashram being moved to other complexes owned by the ashram in various states such as Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, etc., the Delhi High Court also directed the ashram to not move the inmates to any other facility.

The application along with its connected matter, namely WP(c) No. 13827/2017 titled ‘Foundation for Social Empowerment v Union of India & Ors has been listed on 21.04.2022.