The Kerala High Court has ruled that a person who pays for the services of a sex worker in a brothel cannot escape liability by calling himself a “customer,” stressing that such conduct amounts to inducing prostitution under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA).

 

Justice V.G. Arun, in a significant order, clarified that sex workers must not be commodified or treated as products in a commercial transaction. The Court rejected the notion that an individual paying for sexual services in a brothel was merely availing a service, holding instead that the money paid functions as an inducement compelling the sex worker into prostitution, often against their free will.

 

The case arose from a police raid conducted at a private residence in Thiruvananthapuram, where the petitioner was found in the company of a sex worker. Based on the raid, the authorities charged him under:

• Section 3 (keeping a brothel),

• Section 4 (living on the earnings of prostitution),

• Section 5(1)(d) (procuring, inducing, or taking persons for prostitution), and

• Section 7 (carrying on prostitution in or near public places) of the ITPA.

 

Challenging these charges, the petitioner argued that he was “merely a customer” and therefore could not be prosecuted under the ITPA.

 

The High Court rejected this defense, making strong observations about the status of sex workers and the legal implications of purchasing sexual services in a brothel.

 

“A person utilising the service of a sex worker at a brothel cannot be termed a customer. To be a customer, one should buy goods or services. A sex worker cannot be denigrated as a product. In most cases, they are lured into the trade through trafficking and compelled to offer their body to satisfy the carnal pleasure of others,” the Court said.

 

Justice Arun emphasized that the payment made in such cases is not a commercial exchange but an inducement to continue prostitution:

 

 

Applying this reasoning, the Court partially allowed the petition. It quashed the charges under Sections 3 and 4 ITPA, as there was no evidence that the petitioner was running a brothel or living off the earnings of prostitution. However, the Court directed that the prosecution may continue under Sections 5(1)(d) and 7, holding that sufficient material existed to proceed on these counts.

 

The decision underscores the Court’s view that individuals who exploit sex workers by paying for sexual services in brothels cannot be shielded under the guise of being “customers,” as such conduct furthers exploitation and perpetuates trafficking.