Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 704
Appellant: Budhadev Karmaskar
Respondent: State of West Bengal
Bench: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R Gavai and A.S Bopanna
Introduction
In India sex work is considered to be a despicable profession and it is stigmatized by society. Despite the fact that every individual in India has right to life and personal liberty, sex workers are denied these rights due to the profession they are engaged in. Women who work as sex workers are viewed as having weak morals and bad character.
Constitution of India has bestowed every individual with a right to personal liberty under Article 21 but prostitutes are specifically denied these rights due to the badge of dishonour attached to the work they do.
People in India have a variety of opinions towards prostitution. Some think of it as an inhumane and cruel crime of human trafficking towards women and children while some think of it as abhorrent profession.
In the landmark ruling in the case of Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, Supreme Court of India has upheld the right of sex workers to live with dignity in the absence of any specific legislation.
Facts of the case
- Shrimati Chayay Rani Pal alias Buri, a 45-year-old sex worker, was brutally murdered on the night of 17th September,1999 around 9:15 pm.
- She was a resident of a three storied building in Kolkata’s red light area known as Jogen Dutta Lane.
- Prior to the incident, the deceased was sleeping in front of her room which was near a staircase on the second floor of the building. The accused came up to the second floor and tripped upon the deceased following which a loud argument took place between them.
- The accused Budhadev Karmaskar kicked her with fists and legs and assaulted her, causing her to bleed excessively. She was dragged by her hair, forced against the wall multiple times, and her head was repeatedly beaten against it before she collapsed to the ground and began bleeding from her head, nose, and ear.
- One of the witnesses, Asha Khatun, a maid who was on the second floor when the incident occurred, raised the alarm. People gathered at the scene of the crime and saw the accused beating the victim mercilessly.
- In the midst of the commotion, the accused hurriedly abandoned the victim where she was, shoved and jostled the crowd, and then ran away. Within five hours of the occurrence, the accused was detained by the police on Jogen Dutta Lane at around 2.15 a.m. When the victim arrived at the hospital, she was pronounced dead.
Issues raised
- Whether sex workers and their children are also entitled to the right to live with dignity as provided under Article 21 of Indian Constitution?
- How to provide for the rehabilitation and protection of sex workers?
Contentions
Arguments on behalf of appellant
- The counsel appearing for the appellant strongly denied all the accusations made by counsel of the deceased.
- The learned counsel also submitted that the statement made by eye-witness Asha Khatun during examination-in-chief is not admissible under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, since she did not turn up during cross-examination.
- To support this contention, the counsel relied upon the case of Raghuvir Singh and Ors v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 2324 of 2019 wherein the statement of eye-witness was not taken into consideration due to the absence during cross-examination.
Arguments of behalf of Prosecution
- The Counsel for the prosecution stated that the accused and deceased quarrelled at several intervals, had heated arguments and the relationship between them was sour. Therefore, it was not unnatural for the accused to commit the said crime.
- The prosecution also submitted the injury report prepared by a competent physician wherein it states that the deceased was beaten severely with fists and legs.
- The report also stated that there 11 injuries on the deceased’s body and out those, 8 injuries were sufficient to cause her death in ordinary course of nature.
- Abeda, another witness of the case although not present from the beginning at the spot rushed to the 2nd floor after hearing the noises and her statement matches the statement of Asha Khatun which confirmed Asha’s testimony.
Judgement of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recognized the right of sex workers and upheld the constitutional rights under Article 21 that are available to every individual in India. The Court made the observation that sex workers are not criminals but rather victims of far more terrible crimes like human trafficking, as well as victims of poverty, unemployment, and being born in a red light area. They are forced to pick prostitution route by all of these situations. The court additionally ordered the state governments to give sex workers access to the essential necessities they have been denied their entire lives, including healthcare, educational possibilities for their children, employment opportunities, and safe sex education. The state government was also mandated by the court to make sure that these red-light areas are clean, well-maintained, and secure for workers. The state governments were additionally ordered by the court to take the necessary precautions and steps to prevent the trafficking of women and children for the purpose of prostitution.
Inference
This case refers that every individual has a right to live with dignity. The Supreme Court of India has protected the rights of sex workers who up until now have been denied all of their constitutional rights due to the stereotyped thinking of society and only because of profession.
The right to refuse, to say NO is also denied to women and children who are pushed into prostitution. They do not even have the basic right of consent. When it comes to working as a sex worker, their consent never matters.
A life of dignity and respect is what is meant by the right to personal life and liberty, not just a life as a mere animal existence. Even the most basic necessities, including adequate housing, education, access to healthcare, career opportunities, etc., are denied to sex workers and their children. They endure brutality and cruelty at the hands of men while living in abhorrent, filthy surroundings. They are brutally murdered by men who treat them like a mere commodity. They lose their life for trivial reasons. They even experience violence at the hands of their employers.
This case brings to light the horrible living conditions of sex workers, who work in this profession because they are forced to by circumstances rather than because they enjoy it.
Every individual has the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It refers to a life of respect and dignity, a life of their own choosing, and a profession of their own choosing rather than merely existing as an animal.
Conclusion
This case is a startling example of how sex workers are mistreated, abused and killed because of ruthless people who treat them as a mere commodity. The judgement in this case a landmark ruling because it upholds the supremacy of Indian Constitution once again and safeguards the rights of sex workers to live with dignity barring any scope of discrimination on the basis of one’s profession.
Isha Porje
ILS Law College Pune
3rd Year LLB