The case was initiated by Gaurav Jain, an advocate who filed a Public Interest Litigation PIL after having read an article on the situation of children of sex-workers and the difficulties and discrimination they faced on their upbringing and education.
SCC ]. The Court observed that "segregating children of prostitutes by locating separate schools and providing separate hostels" would not be in the interest of the children and the society at large and that they "should be segregated from their mothers and be allowed to mingle with others and become a part of the society" see headnote.
However, the Court considered that "accommodation in hostels and other reformatory homes should be adequately available to help segregation of these children from their mothers living in prostitute homes as soon as they are identified" see headnote. The judgment at hand was issued based on this report, eight years after the Committee was formed. The Court found all of these applied directly to this case. Further, the Court ruled that sex-workers should be rehabilitated through self-employment schemes and invited the state to evolve procedures and principles to ensure that sex-workers would also enjoy their fundamental and human rights.
The Court went beyond the initial petition and instructed the state of India to take a range of specific measures to, first, eradicate prostitution and, second, better protect the children of sex-workers.
As of early , children of women in prostitution still face discrimination and abuse from other children in schools due to stigma and many of them are out of school, especially girls. There is still a need to strengthen existing laws and pass legislation to regulate access to foster homes while guaranteeing that the system ensures that these children receive the same treatment and opportunities as other children and that stigma is overcome.
