In Begum v. State which was also an appeal adjudicated by Judge Patel who implied and asserted that the state should prefer alternative ways for solving the issues rather than being inconsiderate towards the victims of prostitution. He further added that it is the hooligans who are a greater threat to society instead of the prostitutes. Nevertheless the Supreme Court concluded inaccurate judgment without evaluating or confuting the opinion of the High Court. The judgment upheld by the Supreme Court shows callousness and added up aspersion along with suppression to the females in prostitution.
However, the High Court at least indicated the unreasonableness of the removed provision which contravenes section 14, 19(1)(d) and (e) as well as Article 21 that preserves “right to life and personal liberty of a person.” The Supreme Court was apprehensive to decide for an ineffaceable solution then it inculpated the victims or sufferers. If it really had the aspiration to put halt to prostitution it would had abolished the provisions that braced prostitution as an occupation. Instead of recommending better substitute, totally banning prostitution it didn’t even propone for draconian castigation for criminals benefiting through prostitution.
The ITPA 1986 elucidates the terms ‘brothel’, ‘child’, ‘corrective institution’, ‘prostitution’, ‘protective home’, ‘public place’, ‘special police officer’, and ‘trafficking officer’. The main aim of ITPA is to eradicate traffic in women for prostitution commercially treated as a systematic way of living .According to the ITPA owning a brothel or having premises where prostitutes are kept for earning are considered crime. ITPA has set of punishment for people who are firstly adult earning from prostitutes, capturing a person for the sake of prostitution, keeping a person captive in such a premise where prostitution is practiced.
This Act says that even the action of accosting someone services as a prostitute or offering someone other services as a prostitute is also a criminal conduct. Therefore, the law was amended to declare section 8 free from guilt or obligation for the moto to stop criminalizing sex workers for the offence of seduction. This however, complexes the law in an even more tangled situation due to section 5(c) that suggests irreproachable punishments for clients. The people who own such premises where prostitution is lead on shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years for his first conviction along with a strict painstaking imprisonment that can extend up to five year along with fine. Section 3 of the ITPA 1956 sets punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing any premises to be used as a brothel with imprisonment of 1 year and not more than three years along with fine which may extend up to 2000 rupees and on a second subsequent conviction shall be imprisoned for not less than two year and not more than five years along with fine that may extend up to 2000 rupees.
The legislation and Indian Constitution as well as the Indian judiciary are questioned of its righteousness by the delicate issue of extensively reported rise of sex enslavement of young girls into sex markets, brothels and streets. The legal body that generally eulogizes about its advocacy on vengefulness in socio-political grounds of Indian politics failed to portray its activism for this fragile issue as a social problem. It is saddeningl to see that India has only few judicial judgments regarding the problems of female enslavement for prostitution, that too these few cases were registered by people who considered it beyond the pale. The undeniable authentic truth is that the country had rarely implemented provisions against traffickers who abduct females for prostitution.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge