The Karnataka High Court ruled that individuals cannot be penalized solely for engaging in prostitution, distinguishing personal actions from exploitative activities. This decision came from a case involving a woman charged under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court recently stated that there is no legal basis to penalize individuals solely for engaging in prostitution. This significant legal observation was made by Justice M Nagaprasanna, who emphasized the distinctions between personal actions and exploitative commercial activities under the law.
The case in question involved a 29-year-old woman from Koppa taluk in the Chikkamagaluru district, who was previously arraigned as accused No. 8 under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The case was pending before the JMFC court at Kundapur. According to court documents, the woman, along with others, was allegedly being transported from Udupi to Goa to engage in prostitution, with each person reportedly paying Rs 10,000.
Justice Nagaprasanna clarified-
“What is punishable is the exploitation of sexual activity for commercial gain or livelihood.”
His judgment effectively quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, pointing out the critical difference between voluntary involvement in prostitution and being exploited for it.
The police had intercepted the vehicle transporting the petitioner and other individuals, rescuing them and subsequently registering a case against them. Challenging her prosecution, the petitioner argued that she was a victim of the circumstances orchestrated by other accused individuals in the case. Her plea highlighted an important issue in legal proceedings concerning prostitution — the distinction between victims and perpetrators.
Justice Nagaprasanna further noted that prosecuting a victim would constitute an “abuse of law.” This statement from the bench underlines a shift towards more empathetic legal handling of cases involving prostitution, particularly emphasizing the protection of victims over unjust prosecution.
ALSO READ:‘Notice to 44 Government Bodies’ by Karnataka HC
The government advocate, representing the state, opposed the petitioner’s plea on the grounds of the case’s age, arguing that it had been over a decade since the incident, and thus, the court should not entertain such belated claims. However, this argument was set aside by the court in favor of addressing the immediate legal misinterpretations present in the case.
This judgment is particularly noteworthy not only for its immediate impact on the petitioner’s life, freeing her from legal charges, but also for its broader implications on how prostitution is treated under Indian law. It reinforces the judiciary’s role in differentiating between voluntary acts and exploitative practices, ensuring that justice serves the protection and respect of individual rights.
The court carefully examined the pertinent legal documents and the applicable statutes, especially focusing on Section 5 of the Act that deals with offenses related to prostitution.
Justice Nagaprasanna made a critical observation, stating-
“After reviewing the evidence and legal provisions, Justice Nagaprasanna observed that Section 5 of the Act does not prescribe punishment for women who are victims of prostitution.”
This statement highlights the law’s orientation towards protecting, rather than penalizing, the victims of prostitution.
Elaborating on the interpretation of the law, the judge remarked-
“It clearly indicates that anyone who procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl for prostitution would be liable for prosecution.”
This distinction emphasizes that the legal system targets those who exploit or coerce women into prostitution, rather than the women who are often victims of circumstances.
Justice Nagaprasanna further reinforced his stance by referring to a precedent set by the Bombay High Court, which aligns with his interpretation. He pointed out that the higher court had established a clear directive regarding the non-prosecution of victims:
“The Bombay High Court clearly ruled that prosecuting the victim would constitute an abuse of law.”
Addressing the specific case at hand, involving the petitioner who was identified as a victim of prostitution, the judge asserted the inappropriateness of continuing the trial against her.
ALSO READ: ‘Go Hang Yourself’ Not Necessarily Abetment of Suicide: Karnataka HC
He stated-
“Considering the petitioner/accused No. 8 is acknowledged as a victim of prostitution, allowing further trial to proceed would constitute an abuse of the legal process, leading to manifest injustice.”
By allowing the petition, Justice Nagaprasanna effectively halted further legal proceedings against the petitioner, thereby preventing what he termed a ‘patent injustice’.
