The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling, asserting that individuals who engage with sex workers in a brothel—and describe themselves merely as “customers”—can be prosecuted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA). Justice V.G. Arun clarified that sex workers cannot be reduced to commodities or products within a commercial context, particularly given that many are victims of coercion or human trafficking.
In a case arising from a police raid at a premises in Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner—a man found with a sex worker—argued that he was merely purchasing a service and should not face criminal liability. He had been charged under Sections 3 (keeping a brothel), 4 (living on the earnings of prostitution), 5(1)(d) (procuring, inducing, or taking persons for the sake of prostitution), and 7 (prostitution in or near public places) of the ITPA.
The petitioner’s stance was that he did not facilitate or manage the brothel and thus was improperly included under the Act’s more serious provisions. However, the High Court rejected this defense with a pointed observation: to be a “customer” implies a transaction for goods or services. Sex workers—often trafficked or forced into prostitution—cannot be equated with goods. Any payment made within that context functions not as legitimate commerce but as inducement, compelling the individual to engage in prostitution for another’s pleasure.
The court held that such individuals cannot escape accountability by self-identifying as customers; rather, their actions fall squarely within the ambit of inducement and exploitation prohibited by Section 5(1)(d). Consequently, the High Court allowed the prosecution to continue under Sections 5(1)(d) and 7, while quashing proceedings under Sections 3 and 4. The judgment underscores that paying for sex in a brothel is not a neutral act—it contributes to the perpetuation of coercive systems of sexual exploitation.
The ruling serves as a judicial reminder that sex workers deserve protection from commodification, and that those who pay for their services in exploitative settings may be criminally liable under the ITPA.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.