The Kerala High Court has held that a person availing the services of a sex worker in a brothel can be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as payment of money amounts to inducing the sex worker to engage in prostitution.
Justice V.G. Arun, while dismissing in part a petition filed by a man accused in a prostitution case, ruled that such individuals cannot be treated as mere “customers,” since a sex worker is not a product to be purchased.
The petitioner was charged under Sections 3 (keeping a brothel), 4 (living on the earnings of prostitution), 5(1)(d) (inducing a person to carry on prostitution), and 7 (prostitution in or near public places) of the Act. He had contended that he was only a customer at a brothel and could not be booked for inducing prostitution.
The case dates back to March 2021, when police raided a house in Kudappanakunnu within the Peroorkada police station limits and allegedly found the petitioner and a woman without clothes. Investigators later discovered that two other accused had procured three women for prostitution and were arranging clients.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument, the court observed: “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 further stated that the payment given to a sex worker in a brothel can “only be perceived as an inducement” to make them offer their body and comply with the demands of the payer. Therefore, such conduct attracts prosecution under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act.
Emphasising the object of the legislation, the order noted: “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.”
While quashing the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the High Court permitted prosecution to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 5(1)(d) and 7. The ruling was delivered on July 21.
