Supreme Court’s landmark decision on women prostitutes; ‘That’ 70-year-old law has been widely interpreted

• Supreme Court’s historic judgment on women who sell sex
• ‘That’ 70-year-old law has been widely interpreted
• Find out what they said…

New Delhi: Supreme Court A very important and historical interpretation of the nearly 70-year-old law related to sex work in the country. The Supreme Court has stated in clear terms that if a woman is engaged in prostitution at personal level only for her own livelihood or sustenance, her residence cannot be considered as a ‘brothal’ i.e. brothel or shed under the law. If there is no other sex worker or any intermediary involved in the place, the police cannot take any penal action against the place or the woman on this basis alone, the court clarified.

Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan’s bench delivered this important judgment after a thorough analysis and thorough study of the ‘Immoral Traffic Prevention Act’ (ITPA), 1956. In this historic judgment of about 298 pages, the Supreme Court said, “The main purpose of this Act is not to abolish prostitution completely or to criminalize it outright, but to prevent its commercialization and to put a legal check on the illegal human trafficking businesses that are run in an organized manner.”

Exception is attracting customers in public places

Citing Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, the court clarified that luring, luring or publicly exhibiting prostitution in the open, in public places or places of worship and along main roads is an exception and a cognizable offense under the Act. Because such acts disturb public decency and social morality. However, this law cannot directly criminalize a woman who carries out such a business to live a life of her own choice in her private space.

The Supreme Court’s verdict and the ‘Ha’ share crashed, prices tumbled by as much as 16 percent today!

Don’t forcefully ‘rescue’ women doing business voluntarily

The Supreme Court has given very strict directions to the Magistrate and the Police Administration under the Victim Security Scheme. The court said that whenever the police raid a suspicious place, every woman present there should not be treated as either a criminal or a victim. The Magistrate should first determine in the preliminary inquiry whether the woman is an adult and whether she is doing the work of her own free will.

The court clarified that adult women who are voluntarily engaged in the profession cannot be forcibly ‘rescued’ (liberated) against their will and locked up in reformatories or shelter homes for long periods of time. The Court made an important observation that the State certainly has the right to provide rehabilitation facilities, but the State cannot impose these on any citizen against his will.

Supreme Court News: Supreme Court’s landmark verdict on ‘SIR’ process; big blow to opponents and social activists