New Delhi: In a significant order, the Supreme Court has recognized sex work as a “profession” and ruled that its practitioners are entitled to dignity and equal protection under law.
The apex court has directed that police should neither interfere nor take criminal action against adult and consenting sex workers.
“It need not be gainsaid that notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this country has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Court observed.
“Sex workers are entitled to equal protection of the law. Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action,” a three-judge bench said in an order which was passed after invoking special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Justice L. Nageswara Rao-headed bench ordered that sex workers should not be “arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised” whenever there is a raid on any brothel, “since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful.”
The Court was of the view that a child of a sex worker should not be separated from the mother merely on the ground that she is in the sex trade.
“Basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children,” the bench noted.
If a minor is found living in a brothel or with sex workers, it should not be presumed that the child was trafficked.
“In case the sex worker claims that he/she is her son/daughter, tests can be done to determine if the claim is correct and if so, the minor should not be forcibly separated,” the court ordered.
The bench made it clear that use of condoms should not be construed by the police as evidence of offence by sex workers.
Justice Rao was of the opinion that concerned authorities can’t force sex workers to stay in correction/shelter homes against their will.
The Union government has been asked to give its response to the Court’s recommendations on July 27, the next date of hearing.
Comments are closed.