Prostitution-Related Offences
Contrary to popular belief, prostitution itself is not illegal in India.
What is illegal is commercial sexual exploitation—i.e., running brothels, trafficking, living off earnings of sex workers, soliciting in public places, detaining women for prostitution, etc.
✔ Key Sections Under ITPA
| Section | Offence | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Sec. 3 | Keeping or managing a brothel | 1–3 years + fine |
| Sec. 4 | Living off earnings of prostitution of another person | Up to 2 years |
| Sec. 5 | Procuring/inducing persons for prostitution | 3–7 years |
| Sec. 6 | Detaining persons in premises for prostitution | 7–life |
| Sec. 7 | Prostitution in notified/public places | Up to 3 months |
| Sec. 8 | Soliciting for purpose of prostitution | Up to 6 months |
✔ Relevant IPC Sections
IPC 366A/366B – procuring minor girls
IPC 370/370A – trafficking & exploitation
IPC 372/373 – selling/buying minors for prostitution
⭐ CASE LAWS (MORE THAN 5) WITH DETAILED EXPLANATION
1. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997)
Issue: Rehabilitation and rights of sex workers
Facts:
A PIL was filed demanding welfare measures for sex workers and children born in red-light areas, arguing that such children were vulnerable to forced prostitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
The State must create separate rehabilitation homes for children rescued from brothels.
Sex workers should not be stigmatized and must be ensured education, livelihood opportunities, and health care.
Importance:
This case recognized that sex workers are entitled to human dignity, and trafficking—not prostitution itself—is the core criminal offence.
2. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2011–2023)
Issue: Right to life and dignity of sex workers
Facts:
A sex worker was brutally murdered by a client. During the proceedings, the Court took up the broader issue of sex workers’ rights.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
Sex workers are human beings entitled to Article 21 rights.
Police must not abuse or detain them unlawfully.
Adults engaging in consensual sex work cannot be criminalized.
Importance:
It led to a Supreme Court panel recommending decriminalization of adult voluntary sex work and protection from police harassment.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991)
Issue: Does a sex worker have the right to privacy and sexual autonomy?
Facts:
A police officer attempted to have sexual relations with a sex worker; when she refused, he assaulted her. She testified against him.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
A sex worker is entitled to the same protection of law as any other woman.
Her testimony cannot be disbelieved merely because of her profession.
Importance:
Reinforced that being a sex worker does not strip a woman of her constitutional and legal rights.
4. Vishal Jeet v. Union of India (1990)
Issue: Child trafficking and child prostitution
Facts:
A PIL highlighted rampant child prostitution, particularly through organized rackets.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed:
Setting up rehabilitation homes for rescued minors.
Stronger enforcement against trafficking gangs.
Special police squads to combat child prostitution.
Importance:
This case established that protection of minors is paramount and strengthened the anti-trafficking framework.
5. Prajan Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997)
Issue: Legality of eviction and rehabilitation of sex workers
Facts:
Sex workers from a locality challenged forced eviction without rehabilitation planning.
Judgment:
The Court held:
Government must not forcibly displace sex workers without providing viable rehabilitation options.
Eviction cannot be used as a method of “moral cleansing”.
Importance:
reinforced rehabilitation over punishment.
6. Ghulam Hossain v. State (Calcutta High Court)
Issue: Conviction for managing a brothel under ITPA
Facts:
Police raided a house used consistently for prostitution. The accused claimed it was only a one-time incident.
Judgment:
The Court noted:
A brothel does not require long-term activity; even repeated use for sexual exploitation is enough for conviction.
Importance:
Clarified the definition of a “brothel”, making enforcement of Section 3 easier.
7. Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh (1962)
Issue: Living off the earnings of prostitution
Facts:
A man was financially dependent on the earnings of a sex worker.
Judgment:
The Court held:
Even partial dependency on earnings derived from prostitution is punishable under Section 4 ITPA.
Importance:
Established the principle that pimps and exploiters will not receive protection under the guise of relationships.
⭐ SUMMARY
✔ Legal Prostitution = Not criminal
Adult voluntary sex work is not illegal.
✔ Criminal Activities (Punishable Under Law)
Trafficking
Running brothels
Detaining women
Soliciting publicly
Living off earnings
Exploiting minors
✔ Courts Repeatedly Emphasize
Protection of sex workers’ human rights
Severe punishment for trafficking
Rehabilitation instead of harassment
RELATED Blog
0 comments