Supreme Court Seeks Update From Centre On Sex Workers' Rehabilitation Bill

The Supreme Court on Thursday orally sought an update from the Centre on the status of a proposed bill on the prevention of trafficking, and the rehabilitation of sex workers. “Once that act is enacted, many of the aspects will be taken care of. We also know our limitations,” Justice Gavai remarked, during the hearing. A bench of Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol was hearing a plea by Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee, a collective of 65,000 sex workers. The organisation originally raised this plea in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic to highlight the lack of access of sex workers to governmental schemes to distribute dry rations. The interlocutory application was filed in a 2011 petition in which the top court had taken suo motu cognisance of the rights available to and the conditions of sex workers in the country. Notably, a committee was constituted by the court to advise on issues relating to the prevention of trafficking, rehabilitation of sex workers wanting to quit sex work, and the conditions conducive for sex workers to live with dignity in accordance with Article 21, which submitted its final report in 2016. Last year, in a significant development, a bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao (retired) issued a slew of directions for the rehabilitation of sex workers. Earlier, in 2016, the Supreme Court was told that the committee’s recommendations were considered by the union government and a draft legislation formulated. After this, the Centre assured the court a number of times that a comprehensive legislation would soon be passed. Ultimately, the top court was compelled to pass directions relating to the rehabilitation of sex workers that would ‘hold the field’ till the proposed legislation is finally enacted by the Parliament. “What happened to the bill?” Justice Gavai asked Additional Solicitor-General for India Jayant Sood yesterday. The law officer said that pursuant to an earlier order, the amicus curiae and the counsel for the applicant had been provided with the proposed bill. However, senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing on behalf of Durbar, objected, saying, “They have sent us the old bill, which has been subsequently amended.” Sood assured that he would seek instructions. Grover also pointed out that the union government had objected to the committee’s recommendation to allow adult women to voluntarily engage in sex work. “This needs consideration. When we take this up, we will see if the Parliament has passed an Act. If they have not, we will consider passing orders with respect to this,” Justice Gavai said. “They have agreed with the practice of the National AIDS Control Organisation, which is in consonance with the recommendation,” the senior counsel explained. How can the Ministry of Women and Children object to a recommendation ignoring the practice of the government itself, Grover exclaimed. In response, Justice Gavai asked the additional solicitor-general to “take all departments on board”. Besides this, the bench was also informed by the amicus curiae and senior advocate Jayant Bhushan that adult sex workers are being treated like criminals in most states and not being allowed to leave the protective homes under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act despite the Supreme Court’s directions to the contrary. He said: “Adult women wanting to leave cannot be held against their will in these protective homes. These protective homes are like jails. Most of them do not want to be there. These are adult women, not criminals. States should not be allowed to treat them in this patriarchal manner and say this is for their protection, even when the women are not willing.” Among other things, the court specifically said that adult women who are detained against their will in ITPA protective homes would be permitted to leave. Not only this, but it also directed state governments to conduct surveys of these protective homes. Background In September 1999, a sex worker living in a red-light area in North Kolkata was murdered in cold blood by a prospective client with whom she reportedly refused to have sex. This led to the Supreme Court’s landmark pronouncement more than a decade later, in which it affirmed that the right to live with dignity enshrined under Article 21 extended to people in sex work as well. “[Sex workers] also have a right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India since they are also human beings and their problems also need to be addressed,” the court held. While dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the Calcutta High Court’s decision to uphold his murder conviction and life sentence, a bench headed by retired judge Markandey Katju passed a suo motu order directing central and state governments to prepare rehabilitation schemes for sex workers, under which they would be given technical or vocational training, ...

Supreme Court Seeks Update From Centre On Sex Workers' Rehabilitation Bill

Awstika Das

Tags