Voluntary sex work by adults not an offence, only running brothel is: HC

Observing that an adult indulging in sex work voluntarily is not an offence, the Madras High Court has directed the State police not to take action in such cases.

“Police should refrain from taking action against any sex worker, who is adult and is indulging in sexual activity as per his/ her wish,” Justice N Sathish Kumar ruled.

The judge made these observations on allowing a criminal original petition filed by a petitioner named Udhaya Kumar.

The petitioner, an accused in a brothel case, prayed for a direction to quash the criminal case filed against him by the Anti-Vice Squad-II, Chennai City Crime Branch (CCB) after allegedly being caught while indulging in a sexual act during a raid at a massage centre.

However, the petitioner’s counsel D Prasanna Kumar submitted that his client was not involved in any such action and the FIR was filed against him merely on the ground that he was present in the centre.

“Even if the entire allegations are taken together, it would not attract any offence. Doing sex work is not illegal and only running a brothel is illegal,” the advocate submitted.

Concurring with the lawyer, the judge held that the act of the petitioner also cannot be said to be an act of pressurising the sex workers to commit acts, in which they were not interested.

The judge further pointed out a verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of Budhadev Karmaskar vs The State Of West Bengal and Others that whenever a brothel is raided, sex workers should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised and it is only the running of the brothel, which is unlawful.

“From the facts, as is evident from the FIR and the alteration report, there is no whisper about any coercion on the sex workers to commit the act, more so from the petitioner,” the court noted.

The petitioner not being alleged to be a person coercing the sex worker to commit the sexual act, continuing the FIR against this petitioner is nothing but a futile exercise and would serve no purpose, the judge observed and quashed the case filed against him.

The judge held that the act of the petitioner also cannot be said to be an act of pressurising the sex workers to commit acts