Person Availing Services Of Sex Worker 'Induces Prostitution', Can Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act: Kerala High Court

Justice V.G. Arun, in his order, clarified that the very concept of “customer” involves the purchase of goods or services. In contrast, sex workers — many of whom are victims of trafficking or coercion — cannot be equated with products or ordinary service providers, adding that a person availing a sex workers' services in a brothel is actually inducing that sex worker to carry on prostitution by paying money. 

The case arose from a raid conducted at a house in Thiruvananthapuram, where the petitioner was found with a sex worker. He was charged under Sections 3 (Punishment for keeping brothel) , 4 (Persons living on the earnings of Prostitution), 5(1)(d) (Procuring, Inducing or Taking persons for the sake of prostitution), and 7 (Prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA). The petitioner argued that he was merely a customer and therefore not liable under the Act.

Rejecting this argument in part, the Court observed:

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

The Court reasoned that the money paid by such individuals is not for a service in the commercial sense but functions as an inducement, compelling the sex worker to engage in prostitution. As such, those who pay to exploit sex workers fall within the ambit of Section 5(1)(d) of the ITPA, which criminalises causing or inducing a person to carry on prostitution.

“The payment therefore can only be perceived as an inducement to make the sex worker offer his/ her body and act in accordance with the demands of the payer. Thus, a person availing the services of a sex worker in a brothel is actually inducing that sex worker to carry on prostitution by paying money and is therefore liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act.”

The Court thus allowed the petition in part by quashing the proceeding against the petitioner for the offences under Section 3 and 4 and permitting to continue prosecution for the offences under Sections 5 (1) (d) and 7 of the Act.

Case Title: XX v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl. M C 8198/ 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 547

Counsel for Petitioner: C S Sumesh

Counsel for Respondent: Pushpalatha M K (Sr. G P)