The Scope of “Prostitution” under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956:Judicial Interpretations and Legislative Ambiguity
- Lavika
- Sep 18
- 14 min read
Introduction
The regulation of prostitution in India has been shaped by a complex interaction of colonial morality, social reform movements, and post-independence legislative policy. The current law, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), represents India’s primary legislative framework against commercial sexual exploitation. Enacted in pursuance of India’s international commitments under the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons (1949), the statute aimed to curb trafficking and “immoral traffic” rather than prostitution per se.
Despite its centrality, the Act remains fraught with ambiguity in scope, definitions, and enforcement mechanisms. While it does not explicitly criminalise the act of sex work between consenting adults, it criminalises activities surrounding prostitution—such as keeping a brothel, soliciting in public, or living off the earnings of sex work. This indirect approach has resulted in inconsistent judicial interpretations and has led to a blurring of the line between consensual sex work and trafficking or exploitation.
Indian courts, therefore, have been frequently called upon to interpret the meaning of “prostitution” and related activities under the ITPA. Landmark decisions such as Gaurav Jain v. Union of India and Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal reveal evolving judicial attitudes—ranging from evidentiary presumptions about prostitution to recognition of sex workers’ rights to dignity and livelihood. These judicial pronouncements highlight the tension between statutory morality and constitutional rights, a tension that remains unresolved in the absence of legislative clarity.
This paper argues that the scope of “prostitution” under the ITPA remains legislatively ambiguous and judicially inconsistent, creating a fragile legal framework that inadequately distinguishes between trafficking victims and consensual sex workers. It contends that while courts have increasingly emphasized a rights-based approach, the statutory text lags behind, necessitating urgent reforms.
Statutory Background of the ITPA
Historical Context
The regulation of prostitution in India predates independence, with colonial authorities enacting measures such as the Cantonment Acts to control venereal diseases among British troops. These early laws were rooted less in concern for women’s welfare than in maintaining public health and “moral order.” After independence, India inherited these moralistic frameworks but reoriented them toward its obligations under international law.
In 1950, India ratified the UN Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons. Parliament enacted the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (SITA), 1956, which was later amended and renamed the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The Act was designed to align domestic law with global anti-trafficking commitments, but over time, it has been critiqued for its over-criminalisation and its failure to address the distinction between consensual sex work and trafficking.
Legislative Structure
The ITPA does not directly criminalise prostitution. Instead, it targets:
Brothels: Section 3 penalises keeping or managing a brothel, with imprisonment up to three years for first conviction.
Living on the earnings of prostitution: Section 4 penalises anyone who knowingly lives off another person’s sex work.
Procuration or inducement: Section 5 punishes procuring or inducing a person into prostitution.
Detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried out: Section 6 penalises unlawful detention.
Prostitution in the vicinity of public places: Section 7 restricts carrying on prostitution near schools, temples, or hospitals.
Solicitation: Section 8 penalises seduction or solicitation for prostitution in public places.
The cumulative effect is that while sex work per se is not illegal, it becomes practically criminalised when carried out in any organised manner. This legislative design fuels enforcement dilemmas, as law enforcement often targets sex workers themselves rather than traffickers or exploiters.
Amendments and Gender-Neutral Language
Significant amendments in 1978 and 1986 expanded the law’s reach. The 1986 amendment renamed SITA as ITPA and made the statute nominally gender-neutral, recognising that men and boys could also be trafficked. However, in practice, enforcement remains overwhelmingly directed at women in sex work, reinforcing gender stereotypes. Critics argue that the focus on morality and public order overshadows the Act’s protective intent, thereby undermining its rehabilitative potential.
Legislative Ambiguity
The most glaring ambiguity lies in the absence of a clear definition of “prostitution”. The Act defines prostitution as “sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes” (Section 2(f)). Yet this definition is circular and vague: it assumes exploitation whenever commercial sexual activity occurs, even where it may be consensual. The result is confusion between trafficking victims and voluntary sex workers, leaving courts to fill the gap. This statutory silence has made judicial interpretation the primary tool for defining the contours of prostitution in India.
Judicial Interpretations of “Prostitution” under the ITPA
The judiciary has played a central role in shaping the contours of “prostitution” under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Since the Act provides only a skeletal definition, courts have been tasked with interpreting its scope, balancing the legislative intent to suppress exploitation with the constitutional mandate to protect fundamental rights. This section analyses landmark decisions that illuminate how “prostitution” has been understood in Indian law.
1. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997)
In Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed a public interest litigation concerning the rights of children of sex workers.¹ The Court observed that prostitution could be inferred from circumstantial evidence, and direct proof of sexual intercourse was not always necessary.² Instead, surrounding circumstances—such as repeated association with brothels, solicitation, or living in red-light areas—could allow the court to conclude involvement in prostitution.
The Court made two significant contributions:
It underscored the social stigma faced by sex workers’ children and directed governments to ensure their access to education and rehabilitation.
It adopted a flexible evidentiary approach, allowing the prosecution to rely on indirect evidence to establish prostitution-related offences.
While progressive in recognising welfare needs, this evidentiary relaxation also risked criminalising vulnerable women based on mere association or suspicion, thereby perpetuating stereotypes. Critics argue that Gaurav Jain blurred the line between prostitution as exploitation and prostitution as livelihood, reinforcing the ambiguity within the ITPA itself.
2. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2011)
In Budhadev Karmaskar, the Supreme Court considered an appeal concerning the brutal murder of a sex worker. Beyond the individual case, the Court took Suo motu cognizance of the broader conditions of sex workers in India. The judgment declared that sex workers are entitled to human dignity, health, and constitutional protection under Article 21.
Key directions included:
Establishment of a panel of experts to advise on rehabilitation and welfare.
Emphasis on treating sex workers not as criminals but as victims of socio-economic circumstances.
Recognition that sex work, though stigmatized, is a form of labour that must not deprive individuals of basic rights.
This case marked a jurisprudential shift: from viewing prostitution solely as a vice to recognising the human rights of sex workers. It distinguished between trafficking victims (who need protection) and consensual sex workers (who need dignity and safeguards)
3. State v. Vishwanath (Delhi High Court, 2013)
The Delhi High Court, in State v. Vishwanath, examined whether living with or receiving money from a sex worker amounted to “living on the earnings of prostitution” under Section 4 of the ITPA. The Court clarified that mere cohabitation or familial dependence cannot be equated with exploitation. The prosecution must prove that the accused intentionally subsisted on sex work earnings.
This interpretation narrowed the scope of criminal liability and reduced the risk of penalising family members or dependents who are not engaged in exploitation.
4. Sangita v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2015)
In Sangita v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court dealt with the detention of sex workers rescued in a police raid. The Court ruled that adult women cannot be detained in correctional homes against their will unless they are proven victims of trafficking or coercion. It emphasised that consent of an adult woman is crucial, and state authorities cannot force “rehabilitation” in the absence of coercion.
This ruling aligns with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, reaffirming that voluntary sex work, though socially disapproved, cannot be criminalised indirectly by unlawful detention.
5. Supreme Court Directions on Sex Work (2022)
In May 2022, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions recognising sex workers’ rights. It ordered that:
Sex workers must not be arrested, penalised, or harassed simply for engaging in consensual sex work.
Police must treat sex workers with dignity and ensure no violations of their fundamental rights.
Media must avoid disclosing the identities of sex workers during raids or prosecutions.
The Court underscored that sex work is not illegal per se under Indian law, and that punitive measures must target trafficking and exploitation, not consensual adult participation. These directions, though interim, reinforce a constitutional rights-based interpretation of prostitution.
Judicial Trends
From these cases, a clear trajectory emerges:
Early jurisprudence (Gaurav Jain) leaned on morality and evidentiary presumptions, risking over-criminalisation.
Mid-phase jurisprudence (Budhadev Karmaskar) recognised sex workers’ human rights and dignity.
Recent judgments (Delhi HC, Bombay HC, Supreme Court directions 2022) affirm constitutional liberty, restricting state overreach and clarifying that voluntary adult sex work is not illegal.
However, judicial pronouncements have not fully resolved legislative ambiguities. Courts oscillate between moralistic protectionism and rights-oriented interpretations, producing inconsistency across jurisdictions. This reinforces the need for legislative reform to provide clarity.
Legislative Ambiguities and Constitutional Dimensions of Prostitution under the ITPA
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), while intended to curb human trafficking and sexual exploitation, suffers from conceptual and legislative ambiguities. These ambiguities create practical challenges in enforcement, generate inconsistent judicial interpretations, and invite constitutional scrutiny.
1. Ambiguity in the Definition of “Prostitution”
Section 2(f) of the ITPA defines prostitution as the “sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes. However, this phrasing raises several interpretive difficulties:
Circularity: The definition uses broad terms like “exploitation” and “abuse” without explaining their scope. Does every exchange of sexual services for money constitute exploitation, or only those involving coercion and trafficking?
Consent Dilemma: The Act does not clearly distinguish between voluntary sex work by adults and involuntary trafficking-based prostitution. This ambiguity often results in police raids criminalising consensual sex workers alongside traffickers.
Commercial Purpose: The focus on “commercial” elements implies that non-commercial sex (e.g., within live-in relationships or for subsistence exchange) may fall outside the Act, yet courts have seldom clarified this distinction.
Scholars argue that this ambiguity allows the law to be misused against sex workers themselves, rather than focusing exclusively on traffickers or exploiters.
2. Ambiguity in Offence Provisions
The ITPA criminalises several related activities—such as keeping a brothel (Section 3), living on the earnings of prostitution (Section 4), and soliciting in public places (Section 8). Yet these provisions are riddled with inconsistencies:
Brothel-Keeping (Section 3): The law presumes exploitation whenever two or more sex workers live together, effectively penalising collective safety arrangements. This contradicts the notion of autonomy and livelihood rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Living on Earnings (Section 4): Family members, children, or partners of sex workers may be wrongly prosecuted if they are financially dependent, even absent coercion.
Soliciting (Section 8): The provision criminalises “soliciting” in a public place, but leaves “public place” undefined. This leads to wide police discretion, often resulting in arbitrary arrests during street raids.
Such ambiguities undermine the Act’s stated purpose of targeting traffickers and pimps, instead displacing the burden onto sex workers themselves.
3. Constitutional Challenges
a. Right to Equality (Article 14)
The ITPA’s vagueness arguably violates Article 14 by enabling arbitrary enforcement. Inconsistent interpretations across states and courts reflect the absence of a clear legislative standard. For instance, while the Bombay High Court has upheld the autonomy of voluntary sex workers, other states continue to detain women in corrective institutions against their will.
b. Right to Livelihood (Article 19(1)(g))
Although sex work is not expressly recognised as a “profession,” Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to practise any occupation. Courts have acknowledged that the State may regulate, but not prohibit, professions in the name of public interest. By criminalising aspects of consensual sex work (like soliciting), the ITPA indirectly curtails the ability of adults to engage in sex work, raising constitutional concerns.
c. Right to Life and Dignity (Article 21)
Judicial interpretations in Budhadev Karmaskar and the Supreme Court’s 2022 directions underscore that sex workers enjoy Article 21 rights to dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. The practice of detaining women in rehabilitation homes without consent, or exposing their identities in raids, violates these protections.
d. Children’s Rights (Article 39(f) & UNCRC)
The absence of clear safeguards for children of sex workers, despite judicial directions in Gaurav Jain, raises further constitutional and international law issues. The ambiguity often subjects children to institutionalisation, denying them the right to family life and community integration.
4. The Morality–Rights Tension
At its core, the ITPA reflects a morality-driven framework rather than a rights-based approach. Legislators intended to suppress prostitution as a social evil, but in doing so, blurred the lines between victims and voluntary actors. This tension is evident in:
Moral policing through Section 8 (soliciting), which targets visibility of sex work rather than trafficking.
Forced rehabilitation, which assumes that all sex workers are victims, denying adult women agency over their bodies.
Judicial oscillation between paternalistic protection (e.g., rehabilitation orders) and rights-based recognition (e.g., dignity under Article 21).
This unresolved tension makes prostitution law in India internally contradictory and constitutionally vulnerable.
5. Calls for Legislative Reform
Numerous committees and law reform reports—including the Justice Verma Committee (2013) and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Trafficking Bill (2018)—have urged clearer distinctions between trafficking and consensual sex work. The Supreme Court’s 2022 recognition of sex work as not illegal further highlights the urgent need to amend the ITPA to align with constitutional principles.
Comparative Analysis: Global Models of Prostitution Law and Lessons for India
The global legal treatment of prostitution reveals three broad models: prohibition, legalisation/regulation, and decriminalisation. Each model reflects different assumptions about morality, agency, and state responsibility. By examining comparative frameworks, India can evaluate whether the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) remains viable or requires structural reform.
1. The Prohibitionist Model: The Nordic Approach
The Nordic model, pioneered by Sweden in 1999 and later adopted by Norway, Iceland, Canada, and France, criminalises the purchase of sexual services while decriminalising their sale. The objective is to reduce demand for prostitution, viewing it as inherently exploitative.
Key Features
Criminal liability: Buyers of sex face fines or imprisonment.
Decriminalisation of sellers: Sex workers are not punished but are offered rehabilitation, housing, and exit programs.
Symbolic stance: Prostitution is framed as incompatible with gender equality, casting sex workers as victims of patriarchal exploitation.
Critiques
While applauded for shifting criminality onto clients, studies suggest the Nordic model has mixed results. In Sweden, prostitution went underground, making sex workers more vulnerable to unsafe conditions and reduced bargaining power. NGOs argue that conflating all sex work with exploitation denies agency to those who voluntarily choose it.
Relevance for India
Adopting a Nordic-style model may further entrench the victim narrative already embedded in the ITPA. Without robust welfare infrastructure, criminalising clients could backfire, driving the industry further underground and increasing sex workers’ vulnerability to police corruption and violence.
2. The Legalisation and Regulation Model: The Netherlands and Germany
The Netherlands legalised brothel-keeping in 2000, explicitly recognising sex work as a profession. Germany followed with the Prostitution Act, 2002, granting sex workers employment rights, access to health insurance, and enforceable contracts.
Key Features
Licensing: Brothels operate under state-issued permits, subject to health and safety regulations.
Labour rights: Sex workers pay taxes, contribute to social security, and can sue employers for unpaid wages.
Zoning: Authorities designate specific “red-light districts” to regulate visibility and public order.
Critiques
Despite progressive intent, regulation has faced challenges:
In Germany, the system was criticised for failing to dismantle organised crime syndicates controlling the industry.
Many sex workers avoid registration due to stigma, limiting the law’s reach.
Regulation often benefits larger brothels while marginalising street-based or migrant workers.
Relevance for India
A regulated model could address legitimacy and labour rights issues, offering protections against police harassment and unsafe working conditions. However, India’s weak administrative capacity and corruption risks could undermine implementation. Without parallel efforts to reduce stigma, legalisation might privilege elite brothels while excluding poorer sex workers.
3. The Decriminalisation Model: New Zealand
New Zealand’s Prostitution Reform Act, 2003 represents the most progressive model, fully decriminalising sex work while retaining laws against coercion, trafficking, and underage prostitution.
Key Features
Decriminalisation: Neither selling nor buying sex is criminalised.
Labour protections: Sex workers enjoy employment rights, including the right to refuse clients.
Public health: Brothels are subject to occupational health and safety standards.
Empowerment: Policy-making includes sex worker advocacy groups, ensuring participatory governance.
Impact
Independent evaluations show improved health outcomes, greater reporting of abuses, and enhanced negotiating power for sex workers. While stigma persists, the law’s rights-based approach has reduced police harassment and created safer work environments.
Relevance for India
New Zealand’s model resonates with the Indian judiciary’s evolving stance on sex workers’ dignity and autonomy (Budhadev Karmaskar, 2011; Supreme Court Directions, 2022). By decriminalising consensual adult sex work while penalising trafficking and child exploitation, India could align the ITPA with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
5. Lessons for India
The comparative models illustrate that a criminalisation-based approach is outdated. The Nordic model reflects paternalism, while legalisation struggles with inclusivity. Decriminalisation offers the most balanced pathway, protecting against trafficking while recognising the dignity and autonomy of sex workers.
For India, this implies:
Amending the ITPA to decriminalise adult, consensual sex work.
Strengthening laws against trafficking, coercion, and child exploitation.
Providing labour rights and welfare benefits for sex workers.
Involving sex worker collectives in policy-making to ensure effective reforms.
Recommendations for Reform
Drawing from judicial interpretations, constitutional mandates, and comparative models, several reforms are necessary to address the ambiguities of the ITPA and to bring Indian law in line with international human rights standards.
Decriminalise Consensual Adult Sex Work
Amend the ITPA to remove penal provisions that criminalise solicitation and brothel-keeping among consenting adults.
Focus criminalisation exclusively on trafficking, coercion, and child prostitution.
Recognise Sex Work as Labour
Provide labour rights, including access to health services, workplace safety, and the right to unionise.
Ensure inclusion in social security schemes such as health insurance, pensions, and welfare benefits.
Ensure Voluntary Rehabilitation
End the practice of forced detention of adult sex workers in protective homes.
Offer skill training, housing, and welfare support as voluntary options for those seeking exit.
Strengthen Anti-Trafficking Measures
Create specialised anti-trafficking units to investigate organised crime networks.
Provide victim-witness protection and rehabilitation for trafficked persons.
Community Involvement in Policy-Making
Involve sex worker collectives, NGOs, and human rights organisations in legislative and policy reforms.
Recognise lived experiences of sex workers as central to policy design.
Awareness and Destigmatisation
Implement nationwide awareness campaigns to combat the stigma and discrimination attached to sex work.
Train police and judiciary to ensure sensitive, rights-based approaches in enforcement.
Conclusion
The scope of “prostitution” under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 remains clouded by legislative vagueness and judicial oscillation between moralistic protectionism and rights-based recognition. While landmark judgments such as Budhadev Karmaskar and the Supreme Court’s 2022 directions mark a shift towards dignity and autonomy, the ITPA’s ambiguities continue to expose sex workers to harassment, arbitrary detention, and constitutional violations.
Comparative experiences demonstrate that prohibitionist and regulatory models are insufficient. The decriminalisation model, as adopted in New Zealand, offers a balanced path forward, aligning with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21. By decriminalising consensual adult sex work while targeting trafficking and exploitation, India can modernise its legal framework to protect both individual dignity and social justice.
The way forward is clear: a legislative reform that replaces morality-driven control with a human rights and labour rights framework. Only then can India reconcile its constitutional values with the lived realities of sex workers, ensuring justice, equality, and dignity for all.
Bibliography (ALA Style)
Abel, Gillian, Lisa Fitzgerald, and Catherine Healy. Taking the Crime Out of Sex Work: New Zealand Sex Workers’ Fight for Decriminalisation. Bristol: Policy Press, 2010.
Agnes, Flavia. “Constitutional Dimensions of Sex Work in India.” Indian Journal of Gender Studies 19, no. 3 (2012): 349–370.
Bhatia, Gautam. The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts. Delhi: HarperCollins, 2019.
Bruckert, Christine, and Colette Parent. “The State of Sex Work: Policy, Practice and Human Rights.” Journal of Law and Social Policy 20 (2006): 67–93.
Ekberg, Gunilla. “The Swedish Law That Prohibits the Purchase of a Sexual Service: Best Practices for Prevention of Prostitution and Trafficking in Human Beings.” Violence Against Women 10, no. 10 (2004): 1187–1218.
Kapur, Ratna. “The Tragedy of Victimization Rhetoric: Resurrecting the ‘Native’ Subject in International/Post-Colonial Feminist Legal Politics.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15 (2002): 1–37.
Kotiswaran, Prabha. Dangerous Sex, Invisible Labor: Sex Work and the Law in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
Östergren, Petra. From Zero Tolerance to Full Integration: Rethinking Prostitution Policies. Stockholm: Global Network of Sex Work Projects, 2017.
Plambech, Stephanie. “Between ‘Victims’ and ‘Criminals’: Rescue, Deportation, and Everyday Violence among Nigerian Migrants.” Social Politics 21, no. 3 (2014): 382–402.
Wijers, Marjan. “The Struggle for Sex Workers’ Rights in the Netherlands.” Social Justice 27, no. 1 (2000): 82–89.
Vanwesenbeeck, Ine. “Prostitution Push and Pull: Male and Female Perspectives.” Journal of Sex Research 42, no. 1 (2005): 28–34.
Cases and Statutes
Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 10 SCC 283.
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3021.
Sangita v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 2727.
State v. Vishwanath, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4125.
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534.
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
New Zealand, Prostitution Reform Act, 2003, Public Act 28.
German Prostitution Act, 2002, Bundesgesetzblatt I, 2001, 3983.
Supreme Court of India, In re: Sex Workers (2022 Directions), Order dated May 19, 2022.
Reports
Justice J.S. Verma Committee. Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law. Government of India, 2013.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018.