look news india
The country’s highest court (Supreme Court) has conducted a very detailed and important review of the nearly 70-year-old law related to prostitution and trafficking of women. After this review, the court has given such a historic decision, which will change the entire legal and social perspective of looking at this subject.
The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan has clearly said that ‘Immoral Traffic Prevention Act’ (ITPA) The main objective of RTI is not to completely eliminate prostitution or make it a punishable offence, but its real goal is to stop its commercialization and to curb forced trafficking of women.
The aim is to punish the criminals, not the victimized women.
The Supreme Court, writing a long and detailed judgment of about 298 pages, made it clear that this law was basically brought in to punish those criminals, brokers and smugglers who earn profits from this business and exploit women. The law itself is not meant to punish women who engage in it because of some compulsion or circumstance.
The court acknowledged that trafficking of women for prostitution was very common in the 20th century and was considered socially immoral, which is why the word ‘immoral’ was added to the name of the law.
When and under what circumstances will this act be considered a crime?
The court clarified in its judgment that Section 7 and Section 8 of the Act are some exceptions to the general rule, which make even individual acts punishable in certain circumstances. You can easily understand this through the table given below:
The Court is of the view that even though individual acts of prostitution are not completely banned by law, yet it is necessary to control it in public areas to maintain the order and peace of the society so that the general public does not have to face any kind of trouble or dispute.
A single woman’s house will not be considered ‘kotha’
The biggest and most important explanation of this historic decision has come out regarding Section 2 of the law. The Supreme Court has given a big order in favor of women by completely clarifying the legal definition of the word ‘brothel’:
Very important comment of the court
“It should be absolutely clear that if a single woman voluntarily engages in prostitution only to earn her livelihood, and there is no other prostitute, pimp or any other outsider involved in the maintenance of that place or house, then legally her house cannot be considered a ‘kotha’. In such cases, the police or administration cannot take coercive action.”
Point was also raised on the ambiguity present in the old law
The bench also admitted in the last part of its judgment that some technical ambiguities still persist in the existing definitions of this 70-year-old law. This law in many places only characterizes prostitution as abusive or exploitative. The Court believes that the law should become clearer with time so that the legal distinction between a voluntary act and forced exploitation (trafficking) remains clear.
