PIL limits and child welfare relief: broad anti-prostitution directions declined absent proper pleadings and hearing.

In public interest litigation concerning children of prostitutes, relief was confined to juvenile homes and rehabilitation under the Juvenile Justice Act, while broader directions on eradication of prostitution were declined because that issue was not squarely pleaded, adequate notice had not been given to affected Governments, and the parties had not been properly heard. The opinion notes that prostitution is constitutionally and statutorily prohibited and that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 provides the relevant framework, but emphasises that even where a social evil is involved, a court should not issue far-reaching directions beyond the pleadings and hearing before it.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a public interest proceeding concerning children of prostitutes, the Court should confine relief to juvenile rehabilitation measures or also issue broader directions touching the eradication of prostitution and the source of the problem.

Analysis: The proceeding originated as a public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and was later confined, by amendment, to relief relating to juvenile homes under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The order records that while the evil of prostitution is constitutionally and statutorily proscribed, the wider question of eradication of prostitution was not squarely raised by the pleadings, was not the subject of adequate notice to the affected Governments, and was not a matter on which the parties had been heard. The opinion therefore treats it as inappropriate to embark upon such a profound issue in the absence of proper pleadings and hearing. At the same time, it accepts the directions concerning the welfare of the children of prostitutes and notes the statutory and constitutional setting, including the prohibition against trafficking and the framework of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Conclusion: Directions relating to juvenile homes and rehabilitation were accepted, but the proposed directions on prostitution and its eradication were not accepted in this opinion.

Final Conclusion: The relief was confined to the child-welfare component of the petition, and the broader issue concerning prostitution itself was left without direction in view of the limits of the pleadings and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In public interest litigation, a court should not issue far-reaching directions on an issue not squarely pleaded or properly heard, even where the subject matter concerns an admitted social evil; relief must remain confined to the issues duly placed before the court.

---