Soliciting in a brothel can lead to prosecution, says Kerala HC
The bench of Justice VG Arun opined that a person utilising the services at a brothel cannot be termed as a ‘customer’ as a sex worker was not a ‘product’. In most cases, sex workers are lured into the trade through human trafficking, the court said
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has ruled that a person availing the services of a sex worker in a brothel can be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as he/she is inducing the sex worker to carry on prostitution by paying money.
The bench of Justice VG Arun opined that a person utilising the services at a brothel cannot be termed as a ‘customer’ as a sex worker was not a ‘product’. In most cases, sex workers are lured into the trade through human trafficking and compelled to offer his/her body to satisfy the carnal pleasure of others, it stressed.
The HC made the ruling while considering the petition filed by a man who was charged under sections 3 (punishment for keeping a brothel), 4 (punishment for living partly/wholly on the earnings of another person’s prostitution), 5(1)(d) (inducing a person to carry on prostitution) and 7 (punishment for prostitution in or near public places) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956.
The petitioner and a woman were found lying naked in a house in Kudappanakunnu within Peroorkada police station limits during a search by officers in March, 2021. It was found that the first two accused in the case had procured three women and inviting interested persons for the purpose of prostitution. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was only a customer at the brothel and could not be charged for inducing prostitution.
In his ruling, Justice Arun noted that he disagreed with the reasoning of other High Courts that have ruled against penalising those availing services at a brothel under sections 5 or 7 of the Act.
“In my view, a person utilising the service of a sex worker at a brothel cannot be termed as a customer. To be a customer, a person should buy some goods or services. A sex worker cannot be denigrated as a product,” the judge noted in his order delivered on July 21 this year.
The payment offered by such a person at a brothel can “only be perceived as an inducement to make the sex worker offer his/her body and act in accordance with the demands of the payer.”
“Thus a person availing the services of a sex worker at a brothel is actually inducing that sex worker to carry on prostitution by paying money and is therefore liable to be prosecuted for the offence under section 5(1)(d) of the Act. If the inducer is termed as a customer, that would be contrary to the object of the Act, which is intended to prevent human trafficking and not punish the persons compelled to indulge in prostitution,” the order said.
The HC bench allowed the plea in part by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner for offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Act and permitting to continue prosecution for offences under sections 5(1)(d) and 7 of the Act.
