The Supreme Court of India addressed concerns about the welfare and rights of children born to prostitutes in the Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) case. The main goals were to safeguard these kids' rehabilitation, education, and protection from societal shame. Based on this situation, an Indian state introduced a policy to give such kids free education up to the secondary level. A group, however, claimed that this practise was biassed towards other disadvantaged kids who weren't given the same advantages.
Which of the following concerns the discussion surrounding the state's policy the most?
How many babies are born to prostitutes in the state?
Does the Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) ruling compel states to prioritise prostitute children over other impoverished kids when it comes to benefits?
What other assistance initiatives does the government provide to children from low-income families?
Since the ruling, has the state seen an increase in the number of infants born to prostitutes?
The Gaurav Jain v. Union of India ruling's interpretation and application are at the heart of the matter. With regard to other impoverished children, it is crucial to determine if the judgement clearly requires or only suggests special treatment for children of prostitutes.hence option B is coreect option .