NEW DELHI: After an “exhaustive and microscopic” analysis of the 70-year-old Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA), Supreme Court has ruled that the principal objective of the legislation is neither to abolish prostitution nor to make it a criminal offence but to prevent its commercialisation.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, “We are sure that abolition of prostitution or making prostitution a criminal offence is not the principal object of the Act. Rather, what it aims for is the inhibition or abolition of the commercialisation of prostitution, i.e., prostitution as an organised means of living.”While dealing with the issue of rehabilitation of women rescued from brothels, the bench analysed the 1956 Act and said at commencement of 20th century, the trafficking of women for prostitution was common and considered “immoral”, hence the word got attached to the law.Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA) was largely brought forth to punish the perpetrators and not the prostitutes,” the SC said.Writing the 298-page judgment, Justice Pardiwala said Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, which seek to penalise individualised acts of prostitution under specific circumstances like “open prostitution” are exceptions to this general rule. Sec 7 penalises anyone engaging in prostitution in close proximity to public places, and Sec 8 criminalises the soliciting of customers at public places.The bench said, “The idea being that although individual acts of prostitution are not sought to be directly shunned, yet public decency and social morality require that visible overtures even for such singular, non-commercial forms of prostitution be deterred in areas surrounding public institutions and other notified regions to prevent public nuisance. The court clarified that it was not trying to “make a case for the absolute criminalisation on the one hand, or the absolute un-regulation on the other hand, of prostitution as a trade. All that we are trying to convey is that having made it clear that the legislative aim is not to condemn all acts of prostitution, the definition carries with it some normative ambiguity by painting it as solely being abusive or exploitative”.On examination of definition of the word ‘brothel’ in Section 2 of Act, bench said, “It must be clarified that where a single woman practises prostitution for her own livelihood, without another prostitute, or some other person being involved in the maintenance of such premises, her residence will not amount to a ‘brothel’.”End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos‘It Is Public Anger’: BJP Leaders Slam TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Over Sonarpur IncidentPoK Youth Crosses LoC To Meet Woman In North Kashmir, Apprehended By ArmyMamata Banerjee To Lead June 2 Kolkata Sit-In Over Alleged Attacks On Abhishek Banerjee, TMC LeadersVP Radhakrishnan Warns Indian Youth May Follow ‘Cockroach’ If Positive News Is Ignored‘INDIA Stands United’: Abhishek Banerjee Thanks Rahul Gandhi For Support After Sonarpur AttackKunal Ghosh Targets TMC Leaders Over Silence On Abhishek Banerjee Attack, Sparks Internal DebateNepal PM Invokes Britain In India Border Row, Says ‘We Have Also Encroached On Indian Areas’Rahul Gandhi Meets CBSE Student Vedant, Mocks ‘Anti-National’ And ‘Deep State Agent’ AllegationsKalyan Banerjee Alleges Assault Near Chanditala Police Station, TMC-BJP Face Off Intensifies In WBLeaked Audio Allegedly Shows Mamata Berating Hospital CEO After Attack On Abhishek Banerjee123PhotostoriesDivyanka Tripathi shares emotional moments from twin boys’ birth; Delivery room glimpses to Harshdeep Kaur singing “Chanda Hai Tu” for the newborns’Stranger Things’ to ‘Game of Thrones’: Series that gained popularity owing to their conspiracy theoriesWhy does postpartum hair fall happen?Causes, treatment, and effective ways to manage it7 powerful reverse psychology tricks that usually work6 types of litchi available in India and how to pick the sweetest one at the market22-year-old influencer dies after dealing with depression and anxiety: 7 things women should do before reaching a breaking pointKriti Sanon is serving flirty luxe with emerald envy in this Rs 67,000 designer mini dress for ‘Cocktail 2′ promotionsArchana Puran Singh’s son Aaryamann gives a glimpse of his new approximately Rs 50 crore house in Madh Island; he shares an important update7 factors making India’s coastal towns real estate investment hotspots5 surprising ways yoga changes your mind and soul (not just your body)123Hot PicksRCB vs GT IPL Final LiveVinesh PhogatMonsoon ForecastHenry Nowak murderFrancisco CerundoloDonald TrumpGold price predictionTop TrendingDK ShivakumarSpursUP CNET Admit CardVinesh PhogatNorway ChessSupreme CourtMumbai Air India ColonyBSEB Bihar Sakashmta Pariksha Admit CardNTANEET Paper Leak
NEW DELHI: After an “exhaustive and microscopic” analysis of the 70-year-old Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA), Supreme Court has ruled that the principal objective of the legislation is neither to abolish prostitution nor to make it a criminal offence but to prevent its commercialisation.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, “We are sure that abolition of prostitution or making prostitution a criminal offence is not the principal object of the Act. Rather, what it aims for is the inhibition or abolition of the commercialisation of prostitution, i.e., prostitution as an organised means of living.”While dealing with the issue of rehabilitation of women rescued from brothels, the bench analysed the 1956 Act and said at commencement of 20th century, the trafficking of women for prostitution was common and considered “immoral”, hence the word got attached to the law.Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA) was largely brought forth to punish the perpetrators and not the prostitutes,” the SC said.Writing the 298-page judgment, Justice Pardiwala said Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, which seek to penalise individualised acts of prostitution under specific circumstances like “open prostitution” are exceptions to this general rule. Sec 7 penalises anyone engaging in prostitution in close proximity to public places, and Sec 8 criminalises the soliciting of customers at public places.The bench said, “The idea being that although individual acts of prostitution are not sought to be directly shunned, yet public decency and social morality require that visible overtures even for such singular, non-commercial forms of prostitution be deterred in areas surrounding public institutions and other notified regions to prevent public nuisance. The court clarified that it was not trying to “make a case for the absolute criminalisation on the one hand, or the absolute un-regulation on the other hand, of prostitution as a trade. All that we are trying to convey is that having made it clear that the legislative aim is not to condemn all acts of prostitution, the definition carries with it some normative ambiguity by painting it as solely being abusive or exploitative”.On examination of definition of the word ‘brothel’ in Section 2 of Act, bench said, “It must be clarified that where a single woman practises prostitution for her own livelihood, without another prostitute, or some other person being involved in the maintenance of such premises, her residence will not amount to a ‘brothel’.”
