Delhi High Court’s Decision on Woman’s Residence in Ashram
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court decided not to intervene in a case concerning a woman who chose to live in an ashram despite her parents’ objections. The case, Dumpala Meenavathi and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors, brought before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, focused on the woman’s right to choose her place of residence, a freedom protected by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
The case originated when the woman’s parents claimed she was missing from the Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya, located in Rohini, Delhi. On August 24, the Court instructed the Delhi Police to conduct a preliminary investigation. The police found the woman residing at the ashram voluntarily.
After reviewing the inquiry and her statement, the Court acknowledged her adult status and autonomy in choosing where to reside. “She is an adult. Can the Court direct someone to go to a particular place or not to go? Be it her parents, in-laws, or her husband or wife? Would that not be against Article 19? The Constitution guarantees her certain freedoms, including the freedom of movement,” remarked Chief Justice Upadhyaya.
Freedom of Movement and Residence
The Court noted that the woman has been living at the ashram since 2015, driven by her spiritual interests. She clearly expressed that her stay was free from fear or coercion. Consequently, the Court concluded that no further adjudication was necessary for this application, effectively disposing of the case.
During the proceedings, the Delhi Police confirmed that they had inspected the ashram and interacted with its residents, finding no evidence of any restrictions imposed on them. The woman’s parents, represented by Advocate Mani Munjal, argued that the ashram’s residents were subjected to severe indoctrination, a claim unsubstantiated by any resident’s testimony.
Concerns About the Ashram’s Operations
While the Court upheld the woman’s freedom, it also identified several operational concerns regarding the ashram. The State reported that the ashram existed in an unauthorized colony without a sanctioned plan, and its electricity connections were obtained under different names. Furthermore, the Court expressed unease about the unclear management and funding sources of the ashram, noting that it appears to function on personal expenses and donations.
The parents also alleged that they were initially denied a video call with their daughter by the ashram’s founder, Virender Dev Dixit. When the call was eventually made, they observed signs of potential abuse, such as blackened gums and malnourishment, raising suspicions of forced drug use. They urged the Court to mandate a medical evaluation to determine if their daughter was under the influence of drugs. However, it was revealed that Dixit had since passed away, and there were numerous pending criminal complaints against him.
Previous Investigations and Ongoing Concerns
In 2017, a broader petition highlighted issues of illegal detention and exploitation at the ashram. In response, the High Court formed a high-powered committee in 2022 to investigate the ashram’s branches, uncovering various irregularities, including the presence of minor girls living in substandard conditions. Despite these efforts, the parents’ latest petition suggests persistent unlawful practices at the ashram.
The Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 23 to further address the ashram’s operational irregularities.
