top of page
Search

The Rights of Female Sex Workers in India

  • Writer: Policy Corner JSGP
    Policy Corner JSGP
  • Apr 12
  • 7 min read

By Shreya Agarwal



Abstract

India’s legal stance on sex work remains deeply contradictory, permitting the profession, while enforcing restrictive measures that leave sex workers vulnerable to systemic exploitation and social marginalization. Despite constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, they face persistent legal discrimination, arbitrary restrictions on mobility, and unchecked police harassment. Judicial interpretations have both reinforced and curtailed their rights, exposing inconsistencies within the legal framework. The continued denial of fundamental protections subjects sex workers to violence, economic insecurity, and societal exclusion.  


 

India has signed various agreements on the international forum regarding safeguarding the rights of women and preventing gender discrimination. Yet, there has been a deprivation when it comes to the basic human rights of women. The lack of human rights is reflected in violence in the sex industry, inefficient access to healthcare, and a widespread presence of Sexually Transmissible Diseases (STDs). Sex Work is one of the oldest professions that has existed in India. According to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 1956(2)(f), prostitution is described as “the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes or consideration in money or any other kind” (Misra et al., 2000).  The Immoral Traffic Prevention Act of 1956 permits sex work as a legal profession but prohibits the running of brothels. The terms Sex work and Sex trafficking have often been used interchangeably when there is an extensive variance between the two. As per the United Nations, “Trafficking is also defined as acts involving forced labor, forced marriages and forced prostitution” (George et al., 2010). Sex trafficking is an international crime which violates basic human rights.  


Despite women entering sex work willingly, it doesn’t change the exploitative nature of sex work. Women in sex work have been forced to work in inhumane conditions while having no rights and protection from the law. They are looked down upon in the society. Once in the profession, it is very difficult for sex workers to find a loophole to step out. Women might not have willingly chosen sex work, but the circumstances may have forced them to, like the children born to sex workers who have known only that way of life. This paper examines the rights of sex workers in India despite how they got into the profession.  


Case Law Analysis

Like any other citizen of India, sex workers should have the right to move freely across the country. Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution permits the freedom to move freely across the country. The sex workers should have the right to move freely across the territory, yet they are left at the mercy of the jurisdiction. In a landmark judgment of the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushaliya & Others, 1963 (1964 AIR 416, 1964 SCR (4) 1002), the Supreme Court passed the judgment that the right of movement of sex workers will be regulated based on Public Health and the interest of Public Morals. The Magistrate can compel the sex worker to remove herself from a place that she is frequenting or residing in despite it not being within the local limits of his jurisdiction, she will also be prohibited from re-entering a place without written permission from the Magistrate. The restriction imposed on sex workers also stems from the conventional mindset that believes sex workers to be filthy and disrupt the dynamics of a household. The Indian Penal Code has justified the arrest of women for ‘public indecency’ and disrupted the public by being a ‘nuisance’. The contradiction with ITPA, 1956, is constituting sex work a legal profession when women are not allowed to practice it freely.  


In the petition filed by the Sahyog Mahila Mandal1, they challenged the provisions of Sections 7(1)(b), 14, and 15 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, because they violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21, 19, and 14 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner alleges that the police used the law to discriminate against sex workers and violate their rights. The case law reports that the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Senior Inspector of Police of Chakla Bazaar Police Station used the PASA Act2, 1985, to arrest and harass women without search warrants. The police would barge into the homes of the sex workers, beat them up, and force them to leave the place. While the arrests were made, the procedure established by the law was not followed. The women who were arrested were unaware of the grounds on which they were being arrested. The petitioners of the case “Sahyog Mahila Mandal & Anr. V. State of Gujarat & Others, 2004” (2GLR1764) demanded that sex workers should also be given equal protection under the law and have the right to privacy. The Court contemplated the question of ‘Whether prostitution should be abolished or regulated’. The right to prostitution as a fundamental right of women or girls in the profession was rejected by the Court. The Court stated that Sections 7 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, forbids prostitution in public places, which is non-discriminatory and does not violate the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.  


In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Gaurav Jain before the Supreme Court for establishing a separate educational institute for the children of the fallen women3 of the flesh trade4. “Gaurav Jain V. Union of India & Others, 1997” [1997] (8 SCC 114) The Court stated that separating the children of sex workers and placing them in separate hostels would not be in the interest of children and society at large. The court did not heed the plea for separate hostels but stated that accommodation in reformatory homes and other hostels available upon identification of children from their mothers could be a possible solution. The Supreme Court thereafter formed a committee5 demanding them to present a report with plausible solutions to the matter.  The Court emphasized the rights of children under Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, and 24 that were being violated. The Court envisaged the factors that pushed the women into sex work and acknowledged the fact that the women involved are often uneducated, impoverished, and belong to the marginalized sections of society. Another significant statement ruled by the Supreme Court acknowledged that women involved in sex work should be regarded as victims rather than criminals in our society.  


The Indian Constitution guarantees equal rights to the citizens of India, but sex workers are often left out of this. In judgments such as State of Uttar Pradesh V. Kaushaliya & Others, 1963, the court prevented the sex workers from moving freely across the country and in Sahyog Mahila Mandal & Anr. V. State of Gujarat & Others, 2004 rejected the plea to recognize the Right to prostitution as a fundamental right. The women involved in sex work are daily pushed to the brim, where they must bear the brunt of sexual exploitation and harassment and have no protection under the law.  They are confronted with disparities and stereotypes. In the case of Buddhadev Karmakar v. The State of West Bengal, 2011 (10 SCC 277), a sex worker was mercilessly murdered for refusing sexual intercourse (Fanibanda, 2020).  The Courts were forced to convict the appellant and recognize the challenges faced by sex workers. Although sex work is a legally permitted profession in India, little to no protection has been given to sex workers. The pioneering judgment by the Supreme Court in 2022 re-interpreted Article 21 of the India Constitution, acknowledging the need for legal protection and the right to live with dignity for individuals involved in the profession. As a consequence of the case, the Apex Court and the High Court upheld that sex workers should not be marginalized due to their profession and should be given the ability to practice it with dignity and autonomy. Despite the Supreme Court stating that sex workers have the right to live with dignity, the Court has yet to remove the restrictions imposed on sex workers which prohibit them from moving freely across the country. How are the sex workers to live a dignified life when they are restricted for residing freely?    


A report by Sampada Gramin Mahila Sanstha (SANGRAM) and VAMP to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reveals that the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act is routinely weaponized against sex workers rather than safeguarding their rights. Women in the profession are frequently accused of public indecency and solicitation. In response, Kolkata’s Sonagachi Project6 in 1992 promoted safe sex, leading to the formation of the Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee in 1995, which championed sex workers’ autonomy and health rights. Through the Usha Multipurpose Cooperative Society, the committee actively combated exploitation by brothel owners and moneylenders. Despite these efforts, systemic discrimination persists, underscoring the urgent need for legal reforms to uphold sex workers’ dignity and fundamental rights. 


About the Author

Shreya Agarwal is a final-year Master’s student in Public Policy at the Jindal School of Government and Public Policy, with keen interests in urban mobility, education, and gender.


References

Comments

Policy Corner JSGP

Liability

"Policy Corner" falls under the Jindal School of Government and Public Policy. Policy Corner's social media handles are kept free of advertisement as it is funded in entirety by O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat.

Policy Corner does not any endorse the views of its writers or any parent/associated organization.

Follow Us
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat-Narela Road, Sonipat, Haryana - 131001, India

bottom of page