2022 SCC online SC 704
- The case deals with the gruesome murder of a 45-year-old sex worker that attracted the eyes of the whole nation to the vulnerable state of sex workers and the social stigma attached to them. It collectively emphasized on the rights of sex workers under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- Article 21 states that not any single person, be it citizen or noncitizen shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. Thus, Article 21 deals with two rights:
Firstly, the Right to life,
Secondly, the Right to personal liberty.
It states that everyone has the right to live irrespective of gender and cultural variations and everyone has the right to mention their liberty and share their thoughts and views in society.
- The present case was initiated in the form of criminal proceedings against Budhadev Karmaskar.
- Here the Appellant heinously murdered a prostitute who refused to have sex with him.
- The victim named Chaya Rani Pal also known as ‘Buri’was a resident of a three-storied building situated in the red-light area of Jogen Dutta Lane in Kolkata. Before the incident, the deceased was sleeping in front of her room near the staircase on the second floor of the building, at around 2100 hrs to 2130 hrs the accused went up to the second floor.
- The accused Budhadev Karmaskar kicked the deceased with fists and legs and assaulted her which left her bleeding profusely. The accused dragged her by her hair when she fell on the floor and thrashed her head against the wall.
- Subsequently, she started bleeding from her head, nose, and ear. Asha Khatun, one of the eyewitnesses, who was a maidservant was present on the second floor when the incident occured. She was the one who called out for help.
- Thereafter as soon as a protest by the people present there began, the appellant left the spot. The victim was declared dead while she was being taken to the hospital.
- The proceeding was settled by the High Court of Calcutta in the year 2004 by passing a judgment where the appellant was convicted of the crime of murder.
Issues raised:
The very basic questions that arose were very basic issues relating to the sex workers of not only Kolkata but also other Red-Light areas across the country. History shows that since time immemorial, it has been a practice to look at sex workers in a bad way, which toughens their day-to-day lives.
- The first issue raised is how to provide a safer environment for the Prostitutes, after rescuing them?
- The second issue is How to safeguard the sex workers’ reputation from the society that look down upon them?
- The third is regarding the scope of Article 21 and the meaning of living life with dignity can be applied to the sex workers and their offspring. The constitution of India has given fundamental rights to all yet, it is shameful, to notice how some sections of the society has to fight and struggle even for the basic right to live a dignified life.
- The fourth issue which is the most important one is whether prostitution legal in India?
Contention:
The court observed that the present status of sex workers in our country is quite miserable. It will take a long time to adjust to the normal environment. The court observed that “What we have done in this case is to present the situation of sex workers in the country in the correct light, to educate the public. It is ultimately the people of the country, particularly the young people, who by their idealism and patriotism can solve the massive problems of sex workers. We, therefore, particularly appeal to the youth of the country to contact the members of the panel and to offer their services in a manner which the panel may require so that the sex workers can be uplifted from their present degraded condition.”
Defects of Law:
Sex workers, including prostitutes, often face various forms of discrimination and stigma that can have significant social, legal, and economic consequences. It’s important to note that views on sex work vary widely, and discussions around this topic can be complex and controversial. Here are some common forms of discrimination faced by prostitutes:
- Legal Discrimination: Many countries criminalize sex work, making it difficult for sex workers to seek legal protection and support. Laws often target sex workers rather than addressing the underlying issues, leading to their marginalization and vulnerability to exploitation.
- Social Stigma: Sex workers often face severe social stigma, leading to isolation and discrimination from their communities. Negative stereotypes and misconceptions about sex work can contribute to this stigma, making it challenging for sex workers to access healthcare, education, and other social services.
- Violence and Abuse: Sex workers are at a higher risk of experiencing violence and abuse, both from clients and law enforcement. Fear of legal repercussions may prevent sex workers from reporting crimes, leaving them without recourse or protection.
- Discrimination in Healthcare: Sex workers may encounter discrimination and judgment within healthcare systems, leading to inadequate access to medical services. Stigmatization can contribute to a reluctance to seek help for health issues, including sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or reproductive health concerns.
- Employment Discrimination: Sex work is often marginalized and excluded from legal labor protections, making sex workers vulnerable to exploitation and unfair working conditions. Discrimination can extend to other employment opportunities, as individuals with a history of sex work may face prejudice in securing non-sex work-related jobs.
- Economic Marginalization: Discrimination can limit the economic opportunities available to sex workers, pushing them into precarious and exploitative situations. Lack of legal recognition and protections may result in financial instability, making it difficult for sex workers to escape exploitative situations.
- Lack of Support Services: Limited access to support services, such as counseling, housing, and legal aid, can exacerbate the challenges faced by sex workers. Discrimination may prevent sex workers from seeking help or accessing resources that could improve their well-being.
Addressing the discrimination faced by sex workers involves challenging societal attitudes, advocating for legal reforms, and promoting policies that prioritize the rights and well-being of sex workers. It’s essential to approach this issue with sensitivity, recognizing the diversity of experiences within the sex work community and considering the perspectives of sex workers themselves in any discussion or advocacy efforts.
Rationale:
The Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal case is one of the landmark judgments given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2011. The case challenged the constitutionality of Section 8 of the West Bengal Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act, 1950, which criminalized soliciting and living off the earnings of prostitution. The case was initiated by a group of sex worker and their advocates who argued that Section 8 of the above act violated their fundamental rights.
This court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the aforementioned Act. The court observed that sex workers are not criminals but victims of circumstances and need to be protected and rehabilitated. The court held that the state should take necessary steps to ensure that the rights of sex workers are protected and that they are not subjected to any form of exploitation or abuse. The court further directed the state governments to provide sex workers with basic amenities like healthcare, education, and vocational training. The court further directed the state governments to take appropriate steps to prevent the trafficking of women and children for prostitution.
Judgment:
- On 19.07.2011, a committee was appointed by this Court to advise and supervise issues relating to the prevention of trafficking, rehabilitation of sex workers who wish to quit sex work, and the conditions conducive for sex workers to live with dignity by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Based on the interim reports that were filed by the Committee, this Court has passed several orders issuing directions to the Central Government and the State Governments which are:
- seeking precise information from the States about having sex workers being offered alternative livelihood, and if they intended rehabilitation.
- All-State Legal Services Authorities were directed to set up a helpline number for sex workers to provide them with free legal assistance.
- Directions to the Central Government to broaden the scope of their schemes meant for rescued victims of trafficking to include sex workers who sought rehabilitation.
- to facilitate sex workers with access to their own Voter Identity cards, ration cards, the opening of bank accounts, etc. and various other facilities, relaxing the rules on verification of residential addresses and
- to provide a range of facilities including crèche, daycare centres, and night care centers for children of sex workers and protect their Right to Education.
- On 14.09.2016 a final report along with recommendations of the Committee was placed on record. The Committee recommended amendments to be made to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, of 1956. One of the terms of the reference that has been made by the panel relates to the recognition of the legal status of sex workers through official documents
- On 15.09.2011, recommendations made by the Committee in its report on 12.09.2011 were accepted by this Court, and the Central Government and the State Governments were directed to implement the suggestions made by the Committee concerning the issuance of ration cards and voter identity cards.
- The order dated 29.09.2020 was reiterated and the State Governments and Union Territories were directed to uniformly distribute the minimum quantity of dry rations as provided in the schemes.
- This court finally observed its important judgment concerning the sex workers, where it specified that the Right to dignity is a Fundamental Right that is guaranteed to every citizen of this country irrespective of his/her vocation.
Christina Roy Mondal
Haldia Law College