The Madras High Court was profoundly shocked to learn that a petitioner, claiming to be a practicing advocate, sought protection to operate a brothel in Nagercoil, Kanyakumari district. This unusual request has sparked serious concerns about legal and ethical standards in the profession.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court recently expressed its profound “shock” upon discovering that a petitioner, who claimed to be a practicing advocate, had filed a petition seeking protection to operate a brothel in Nagercoil, located in the Kanyakumari district. This unexpected and unprecedented request has raised serious concerns regarding the legal and ethical standards within the legal profession.
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court did not merely dismiss the petition but imposed a Rs.10,000 fine on the petitioner. Additionally, the judge instructed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to verify the “genuineness” of the petitioner’s enrollment with the Bar Council as well as his educational credentials.
In his order dated July 5, Justice Pugalendhi highlighted the deteriorating reputation of lawyers in society, emphasizing the necessity for the Bar Council to enroll only members who have graduated from reputable institutions.
He stated-
“The Court is shocked that an individual, presenting himself as a practicing advocate, has filed a writ petition seeking protection to operate a brothel.”
The Petitioner’s Claims
The petitioner, Raja Murrugan, presented himself as the “Founder of the trust, Friends For Ever Trust,” which ostensibly seeks “to promote adult recreation and other related activities” such as “oil bath and sex-related services to its members and customers.”
Murrugan contended that local police raids on his ‘Trust’ were obstructing its activities. He further argued that the Tamil Nadu Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act did not criminalize sex work, citing the Supreme Court’s judgement in Budhadev Karmaskar vs The State of West Bengal, which emphasized the need to treat sex workers with dignity.
The High Court, however, clarified that the petitioner had misinterpreted both the Tamil Nadu Act and the Supreme Court judgement. The laws are designed to protect and rehabilitate sex workers, not to legalize the operation of brothels.
ALSO READ: Orissa High Court Clarifies Legal Stance on Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation Charges
The court remarked-
“The Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 aims to prevent the commercialization of vice and the trafficking of females. While the Act does not declare sex work illegal, it explicitly prohibits the operation of brothel centers. Although consensual sexual activities between adults are lawful, soliciting and luring individuals into such activities are illegal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforementioned judgment, has affirmed that voluntary sex work is not illegal, but running a brothel is unlawful.”
In a previous order, the Court had directed Murrugan to produce his enrollment certificate and law degree certificates to verify his status as an advocate. The petitioner, however, failed to provide these documents, raising further doubts about his authenticity.
The Court expressed its dismay over the situation:
“It is highly unfortunate that the individual engaging in these activities claims to be an advocate. Kanyakumari District, renowned for its 100% literacy rate, now faces the disgrace of such actions being carried out under the guise of legal practice. Recently, another advocate from this district was arrested for dacoity. The Bar Council must urgently recognize that the reputation of advocates in society is diminishing. Henceforth, the Bar Council should ensure that members are enrolled only from reputable institutions and restrict enrollments from disreputable institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and other states.”
The petitioner, Raja Murrugan, represented himself. Additional Public Prosecutor E Antony Sahaya Prabhakar appeared on behalf of the State police, defending the actions taken against Murrugan’s ‘Trust’.
