SEXUAL HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS A legal and ... - The ICHRP

May, 1950 for the prevention of immoral traffic.” While the law does not criminalise sex
work or sex workers, it prohibits various activities surrounding sex work. 812 The law confers
broad powers to the police and the judiciary which are predominantly used to target sex
workers rather than traffickers or trafficking networks. The provisions in this Act dealing
with trafficking and minor girls are discussed in Chapter 5 on Violence (sexual exploitation).
The fact that a law supposedly aimed at preventing trafficking has been largely used against
sex workers has been noted by courts and the government alike. In Vishal Jeet v. Union of
India 813 where the Supreme Court issued guidelines for the prevention of child prostitution 814 ,
the court while speaking of what it termed the evil effects of prostitution, also noted that,
“this malignity cannot be eradicated cither by banishing, branding, scourging or inflicting
severe punishment on these helpless and hapless victims most of whom are unwilling
participants and involuntary victims of compelled circumstances,” and requires “law
enforcing authorities in that regard take very severe and speedy legal action against all the
erring persons such as pimps, brokers and brothel keepers.”
Attempts to challenge Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986, its enforcement and the
forcible testing of sex workers for HIV in the courts have not been successful. 815 In 2003, a
case brought against the Gujarat government for extensive raids carried out in an area
predominantly inhabited by sex workers and the resultant destruction of property, arrests and
harassments of sex workers was dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat. 816 In a case similar
to the one in Bangladesh of the eviction of sex workers from an area called Baina in Goa, the
Goa Bench of the High Court of Bombay was not only unwilling to stop the evictions, it
called on the government to destroy tenements that housed sex workers, noting that many of
the sex workers came from outside Goa and so should be rehabilitated by their respective
state governments. 817
In 2006, the Indian government proposed amendments to Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1986 which met with mixed reactions. 818 While a proposal to de-criminalise solicitation was
welcomed, attendant amendments to punish clients of sex workers led to widespread protests
and as of now, the amendments are on the back-burner.
Unlike India and Bangladesh, where anti-trafficking laws are also the laws on sex work,
Thailand has separate legislations dealing with these issues, although the two laws do have
some overlapping areas of regulation. The primary law in Thailand governing sex work is the
Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act, B.E. 2539 (1996). Section 4 defines
prostitution to mean, “sexual intercourse, or any other act, or the commission of any other act
in order to gratify the sexual desire of another person in a promiscuous manner in return for
earning or any other benefit, irrespective of whether the person who accepts the act and the
812 Thus Section 3 punishes any person maintaining a brothel, Section 4 punishes any person living off earnings
of prostitution and Section 5 punishes the procurement, inducement or detention for the sake of prostitution.
813 W.P. No. 421 of 1989
814 See Chapter 5 on Violence - sexual exploitation
815 Public at large v. State of Maharashtra, Writ petition No.112 of 1996 Bombay High Court and Andhra
Pradesh High Court judgment.
816 Sahyog Mahila Mandal & another v. State of Gujarat & Ors [Special Civil Application No 15195 of 2003
with Special Civil Application No 4594 of 2003]
817 Savera v. State of Goa, Writ Petition No. 365 of 1997, High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench), Date of
Decision: 21 July 2003.
818 The Immoral Traffic Prevention (Amendment) Bill, 2006 (India)
178