MAIMS MOOT COURT SPEECH PETITIONER

Petitioner:

A very good evening to the Hon’ble bench.

Shall the counsel address the hon’ble bench as your lordship?

So, with your permission, the counsel shall be addressing the Hon’ble bench as Your
Lordship during arguments.

May it please the court, counsel, my name is Raghav Arora, team code-41. We the counsels
are representing the petitioner side in the case of

Mr Moore (PETITIONER 1) CLUBBED WITH

Mr Reader and PAIT (PETITIONER 2) CLUBBED WITH

SUSAN (PETITIONER 3) CLUBBED WITH

MS LACID AND MS BOND (PETITIONER 4)

V. UNION OF IDEE(RESPONDENT)

We, the counsel of the petitioner side are here before the Hon’ble court under the Art.32
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court seeking redressal for the enforcement of the fundamental
rights which are guaranteed under the constitution.

May it please the court, the counsel would seek permission to provide the summary of the
facts of this case.

Much obliged, your lordship.

1. Mr. Moore is a well-known businessman of The Democratic Republic of IDEE, a

country with 1.4 billion population. Mr Moore subsequently introduced an app called
“Rose” which was an 18+ app which had explicit content and would connect the user
to one of the service providers who would be indecently clad and would do things on
customer request. The app boasted that it even had several high-profile clients, which
included politicians, actors.
2. Mr Reader was a well-known journalist. He, in one of his meetings with an NGO
namely “Protection against Immoral Trafficking” (PAIT) was briefed about the
“Rose” app which had started to create troubles due to exploitation, human rights

1|Page
 abuse and several illegal detentions being conducted across IDEE. He exposed Rose
app as shady deals, trafficking, exploitation of sex workers and minor girls as well as
child pornography.
3. On 7th July 2020, upon investigation, it was found that several actresses, as well as
struggling models, were part of the app. Further investigation showed that there were
certain minor girls who were also involved and were being exploited.
4. On 19th November 2020, a special investigation team was constituted under the
Federal Unit of Investigation (FUI), and it was found that the app was funded by
several dubious people residing in the State of Fount and was being used not only for
illegal trafficking but also for money laundering under this garb.
5. On 9th December 2020, Mr Moore was arrested by FUI in the FIR No. 96/2020. Mr
Moore being an important businessman and with sufficient means, was denied bail as
he was an economic offender.
6. Three petitions have been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Mr Reader and
PAIT, NGO named Susan and two actresses namely Ms Lacid and Ms Bond.

Your lordship, I will be covering 1st and 2nd issue, and my co-counsel, Aman Kaur will be
covering 3rd and 4th issues.

Me and my co-counsel, both will be taking 14 minutes each, and the last two minutes shall be
reserved for rebuttals.

So, I will be covering 1st and 2nd issue. The counsel seeks permission to begin with the
proceedings.

Much obliged, Your lordship.

So, 1st issue is in regards with

WHETHER MR. MOORE IS ENTITLED TO BAIL, IN CRIMINAL CASE

REGISTERED VIDE FIR NO. 96/2020?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, Mr. Moore is entitled to bail, in criminal
case registered vide FIR No. 96. /2020, on the grounds that, firstly, “Bail not jail rule”, Bail is
a fundamental right of every citizen of India, secondly, Relaxations on the grounds of his ill
health and age, thirdly, Mr. Moore is a victim of media trials, which were started by Mr.
Reader, and at last Mr. Moore has deep roots in the society and is willing to satisfy the triple
test conditions for the grant of the bail.

2|Page
“BAIL NOT JAIL RULE”, BAIL IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN OF
INDIA

“The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the
public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is
integral to a socially sensitized judicial process”. – Justice V.R. Krishna
Iyer in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor case (1978)1

1. ‘Bail is a rule, jail is an exception’ is a legal doctrine that was laid down by the
Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand
alias Baliya (AIR 1977 2447)2. The legal doctrine, in this case, was laid down by
Justice V. Krishna Aiyer, who based it on fundamental Rights guaranteed by the
constitution of India.
Mr. Moore was arrested by the Federal Unit of Investigation (FUI) on 9th December,
2020 in connection with FIR No. 96/2020, which was lodged pursuant to Sections 29
33, 2944, 3175, 3396, 3407, 3418, 3429, 35410, 36111, 36212, 36313, 36514, 36615, 366B16, 3
6717, 36818, 37019, 37120, 37221, 37322, 37523, 37624, 50625, 50926, 51127 of the IDEE Pen

1
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, 1978 AIR 429
2
State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand @ Baliay, 1977 AIR 2447.
3
PEN. CODE, 1860, § 293. (India).
4
PEN. CODE, 1860, § 294. (India).
5
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 317. (India).
6
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 339. (India).
7
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 340. (India).
8
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 341. (India).
9
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 342. (India).
10
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 354. (India).
11
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 361. (India).
12
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 362. (India).
13
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 363. (India).
14
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 365. (India).
15
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 366. (India).
16
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 366 CL. B. (India).
17
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 367. (India).
18
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 368. (India).
19
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 370. (India).
20
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 371. (India).
21
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 372. (India).
22
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 373. (India).
23
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 375. (India).
24
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 376. (India).
25
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 506. (India).
26
PEN. CODE, 1860: § 509. (India).
27
PEN. CODE, 1860:§ 511. (India).

3|Page
 al Code, Section 6728 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section
729,830,1031, 10A32, 1833, 2034 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956 and for a
case under S.435 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Mr. Moore’s legal defence applied for bail on 11th December 2020 to the Sessions
Court in Thor. His legal defence team applied several times in the Session and High
Court of Thor. Mr. Moore was denied bail in all the attempts. 36 Due to this, Mr.
Moore along with his legal team was forced to move to the Supreme Court of IDEE
for the grant of the relaxation for his arrest.37
3. The right to seek default bail under Sec. 167(2) of CrPC 38 is a fundamental right, not
merely a statutory right, which flows from Art. 2139 Right to life of the constitution.
As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the right of the accused to get default
bail is accrued and is indefeasible right of the accused which cannot be defeated by
the prosecution after completion period as per provisions of Sec. 167(2) of CrPC.40
4. In a recent case, the Supreme Court on 11th November 2020 granted bail to Republic
TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in a 2020 case of abatement of suicide 41. A
vacation bench of justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee gave the order on
Goswami’s petition challenging the 9th November Bombay High Court order
declining interim bail to Goswami in the Anvay Naik-Kumud Naik suicide. The
Hon’ble Apex court intervened to protect the Rule of Law and also to protect the
fundamental rights of Arnab Goswami.
5. Detention of an individual infringes the Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of Constitution of India.42 Rule of law prevailed, and liberty of an
individual was rightly protected.
6. It is concluded that bail is a fundamental right of every citizen of India and on the
grounds mentioned above Mr. Moore should be granted bail.
28
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 67.
29
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, § 7.
30
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, § 8.
31
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, § 10.
32
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, § 10 NO. A.
33
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, § 18.
34
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, § 20.
35
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 4.
36
Moot prop, para 10, pg 3.
37
Moot prop, para 11, pg 3.
38
CrPC. § 167 CL. 2.
39
INDIA CONST. Art 21.
40
Supra note, see note 38.
41
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State Of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 2615.
42
Id, see note 39.

4|Page
RELAXATIONS ON THE GROUNDS OF HIS ILL HEALTH AND AGE

7. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Mr. Moore should be considered
for the bail application, because of his ill health and age, and the court should grant
him relaxations from arrest. He repetitively applied for Bail in the Sessions Court as
well as the High Court of Thor. 43 He was denied bail in all attempts. So, considering
this, he is now at the footsteps of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of IDEE, where he is
begging for justice.44

Below are the precedents where the hon’ble courts in India granted bail to the
petitioners on the grounds of ill health of the petitioner.
8. In the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand 45 through CBI, appellant has
been granted provisional bail on medical grounds based on the pathological reports
and discharge summary of RIMS and AIIMS, on 11/05/2018. Appellant was suffering
from various ailments like i. kidney disease, ii. Uncontrolled diabetes iii. Pre-anal
abscess iv. Concentric LVH Grade-II Diastolic dysfunction. So, on these grounds,
provisional bail was granted to the appellant for a period of six weeks extended by
order dated 22/06/2018 to 03/07/2018. Due to various reasons, provisional bail was
extended up to 27/08/2018. The bail expired on 27/08/2018. So, according to court
orders, the appellant should surrender himself before the learned CBI court before
30/08/2018 without any further delay.
9. Similarly, in the case of Atique Ahmed v. State of U.P. (2001)46, Allahabad High court
ordered a short-term bail to the petitioner Atique Ahmed for a period of four months
on medical grounds. The court passed this order on 25/05/2001. Sh. R.K. Jain, who
appeared in the court on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner suffers
from kidney ailments. The petitioner was released on 21/07/2001 for a period of four
months. The period for bail expired on 21/11/2001. During this period, the petitioner
required frequent medical attention because he is suffering from kidney ailments.
During this period, his conduct was observed, and it was also observed that he will
not be involved in any type of crime.

43
Id, see note 37.
44
Id 2, see note 37.
45
Lalu Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 7 SCC 240.
46
Atique Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2001 SCC OnLine All 901.

5|Page
 10. Similarly, in the case of Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta v. CBI47, the appellant here is
the joint managing director of the company “Vishal Exports Overseas Limited”, a
private limited company which is engaged in the export-import business of
agricultural commodities and diamonds. Various banks such as Punjab National Bank,
UCO Bank, Vijaya Bank, etc launched various complaints against the company for
the recovery of the money. However, the trial did not come to an end and Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail to the appellant on medical grounds. There
were four accused in this case. A1 was the company itself. A2 and A3 were granted
bail on medical grounds. A4 was the Joint Managing director of the company. Joint
Managing director of the company is granted regular bail on medical grounds on the
basis of medical certificates of Central Jail Dispensary Ahmedabad. The appellant
was granted bail from 15/09/2011 up to 20/10/2011 and again on 19/10/2011 on
medical grounds. His bail was extended till 30/11/2011. According to the medical
certificate, he is suffering from chest-pain, giddiness, dimness in vision, jaundice and
uncontrolled blood pressure in the past four years.
11. It is concluded that Mr. Moore should be provided with relaxations on grounds of his
ill health and his age and should be granted bail.
MR. MOORE IS A VICTIM OF MEDIA TRIALS, WHICH WERE STARTED BY MR.
READER

12. Mr. Moore is an important businessman. He is a well-reputed businessman. His

business is with several leading companies which are listed on the ‘stock exchange’.
He launched a “Rose” app. It was an 18+ app which included explicit content which
was being displayed by a premium subscription and would connect the user to one of
the service providers who would be indecently clad and would do things on customer
request.48

13. Mr. Reader was a well-known journalist. He wrote many articles on women’s rights
and devoted his entire career for the upliftment of women. 49 In one of his meetings
with NGO namely “Protection against Immoral Trafficking” (PAIT), he was briefed
about the Rose app which had faced several allegations such has human rights abuse,
exploitation of sex workers and several illegal detentions across IDEE. 50 He,
47
Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta v. C.B.I., (2011) 14 SCC 737.
48
Moot prop, para 4, pg 1.
49
Moot prop, para 5, pg 1.
50
Moot prop, para 6, pg 2.

6|Page
 therefore, constituted an investigative unit on his own to investigate these allegations
and protect such women who were being arrested without any reasonable cause. He
started a media trial of his own on 28 th Sep. 2020 when he wrote a full-page article
about Rose app. He wrote, “Rose app certainly has a lot of thorns in it.” In this article,
he wrote some serious allegations about how the app is exploiting women, sex
workers, etc. He also alleged that minor girls and child pornography was being
circulated through this app.51
14. After these serious allegations by Mr. Reader, the media channels went all guns out
for the arrest of Mr. Moore. Media houses wanted Mr. Moore to be punished with the
maximum sentence possible. Media channels started to investigate the matter and
created a trial of its own and being the judge, jury and executioner of this nation.52
15. Thus, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court, that Mr. Moore is a victim of
media trials. These trials were started by Mr. Reader. His image is tarnished badly by
the media houses for their own benefits. Media is trying to decide his verdict on their
TV shows and due to this, they are even affecting the due course of law in the
country. 53
16. In the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra54, Sanjay Dutt was sentenced by
the Supreme Court of India to five years imprisonment on several charges like his
connections with Abu Sale, Mafia Don, for keeping AK-56 rifles with him, his
involvement in Mumbai serial blast in 1993. In 1994, on the airport of Mumbai, he
was arrested because of the above-mentioned charges against him. In his confession,
he said that he kept the gun in order to protect his family because he received threats
during the riots in Mumbai, when he heard about the arrest of Hanif Kadawala and
Samir Hingora and about the serial blasts in Mumbai, he asked his friend to destroy
the rifle. Mr. Dutt was charged and arrested under “Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities Prevention Act, 1987”55 for receiving ammunition from Abu Salem and his
involvement in the blasts. He secured bail after 18 months of imprisonment. TADA
court acquitted Sanjay Dutt of all the charges levelled against him after a long time of
11 years. The case of Sanjay Dutt was highlighted by the media to such an extent that
he was portrayed as a terrorist. Being an actor, he had to suffer a lot of problems and

51
Moot prop, para 8, pg 2.
52
Id, see note 51.
53
Moot prop, para 6, pg 2.
54
Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 189.
55
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987.

7|Page
 his reputation was spoiled by the media and media trials which pronounced him
guilty, although he was innocent.
17. Similarly, in the Rajesh Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation 56, this case was
also known as Arushi-Hemraj Murder case. This case was in the news for a long time
and gained the media attention for a long time. Arushi was murdered along with her
household worker in 2008. Many names were there in the suspect list of murder of
these two persons. Questions were raised about Arushi’s character that she had an
affair with Hemraj, though there was no evidence who could prove this. Arushi’s
parents were held guilty for Arushi’s murder. They were convicted and sentenced to
life imprisonment in Nov. 2013. Though there was no strong evidence against
Arushi’s parents that they had murdered her. There were other suspects also in the
murder of Arushi and Hemraj. There was media’s interference in this case and
because of this, media manipulated the minds of the people. The decision of the court
to give life imprisonment to Arushi’s parents was challenged in the Allahabad High
Court by Talwar’s which later in 2017 acquitted them by giving them benefit of
doubt. They proved that the evidence against them were not enough to prove them
guilty.
18. We plead before the Hon’ble court that our case is similar to the precedents cited
above. How media badly affected the process of justice in the nation. We plead that
Mr. Reader should be duly punished for his own media trials against Mr. Moore, and
how he has taken the due course of law in his own hand.
19. It is concluded that Mr. Moore is a victim of media trials which were conducted by
Mr. Reader and it has impacted Mr. Moore negatively.
MR. MOORE HAS DEEP ROOTS IN THE SOCIETY AND IS WILLING TO SATISFY
THE TRIPLE TEST CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF THE BAIL

20. Although, its already in knowledge that Mr. Moore is an economic offender also it
was stated in the sessions court by the judge that Mr. Moore was a former member of
the parliament and was believed that he would run from the country at the first
instance to a state abroad.57 It should be noted that the mere assumption of Mr. Moore
doing a particular act should not lead to the denial of his bail.

56
Rajesh Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 493.
57
Moot prop, para 11, pg 3.

8|Page
 21. The Supreme court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement58 states the
triple test that is necessary for grant of bail is as follows: 

i. That the accused is not at ‘flight risk’.

ii. That there are no chances of tampering with evidence.
iii. That there is no likelihood that the accused shall influence the witnesses.
22. In Chidambaram case59, SC gets the record straight on bail in economic offences. The
SC judgement granted bail to P. Chidambaram was against the rule to grant bail in the
case of economic offenders too. Justice Banumati said that it is not necessary that
persons who are economic offenders would flee the country. One person can not be
made to suffer because of the conduct of other offenders, the court reasoned. Mr.
Singhvi, who argued from the side of Chidambaram said that while giving bail or
justice to the person, judge them individually and not judge them for national case.
23. Thus, as according to the conditions set in the Chidambarm case, we plead before the
hon’ble court to grant bail to Mr. Moore. He is willingly to fulfil the triple test
conditions as stated above for the grant of the bail.
24. It is concluded that Mr. Moore has deep roots in the society and is willing to satisfy
the triple test condition for the grant of the bail.

WHETHER SEX WORKERS HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT OF TRADE AND

OCCUPATION

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the sex workers have an inherent
right to trade and occupation, on the grounds that, firstly, problems faced by sex
workers in the society ,secondly, Sex workers and the laws governing them, and
thirdly, why profession of prostitution should be legalised.
PROBLEMS FACED BY SEX WORKERS IN THE SOCIETY

2. Mr. Reader and PAIT filed a petition before the Supreme Court to recognise the right
of sex workers as it is not an immoral act as well as they would be better protected if
they were recognised under the law for several benefits and aids which are currently
not provided under any legal framework to the sex workers.60
3. Sex workers face many problems because their work is considered immoral in the
society. According to official estimates there are over 12 lakh sex workers in India.
58
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791.
59
Id.
60
Moot prop, para 12, pg 3.

9|Page
 And the actual figures are still not known. United Nations agencies have attributed
sex work as contractual agreement between a sex worker and her client. Sex workers
are denied the basic health facilities and are subject to abuse and violence by police
and government officials. Violence against sex workers is limited to the perception
that they are treated as criminals and not normal citizens. This is related with violation
of human rights of sex workers such as right to life with human dignity 61, equality
along with equal protection62 like normal citizens. Stigma attached to sex workers
expose them to violence from family members and intimate partners. Violence is used
with sex workers asserting sexual control and is normalised as punishment for having
sex with another man. Sex workers face violence by police and higher authorities
also.
The table below shows the brutality caused to them by the police officials.63

Abusive language EXPERIENCE OF POLICE VIOLENCE

1431 50%
Beaten, hair from
Data collected pulled,
Panbeaten 1011
India survey of 3000 sex workers- 35%
with belts
Threatened 1052 37%
Forced to bribe 569 20%

4. It becomes the duty of government to save sex workers from discrimination,

harassment and violence by police and other government officers. National human
rights institutions hold governments accountable for protection of the rights of sex
workers. The international labour organizations emphasise the need to provide sex
workers their rights relating to health, safety, education and the right to participate in
health and safety related programs. There are many perspectives regarding sex
workers rights. The first perspective is that women are forced and blackmailed to do
this work, so the only perspective is to make them free from this trade of prostitution.
Another perspective is there sex work should be considered as a legitimate business
because if we view prostitution from business point of view, it is necessary that sex
workers should demand their rights relating to their health, safety and education. They
need equal protection of laws against rape and other forms of violence. The Supreme
Court of India also declared that sex workers must be given protection like normal
61
Id, see note 40.
62
INDIA CONSTI. Art. 14.
63
Dasgupta S, “Violence in Commercial Sex Work: A Case Study on the Impact of Violence among Commercial
Female Sex Workers in India and Strategies to Combat Violence” (2020) 27 Violence Against Women 3056.

10 | P a g e
 citizens. There should be rehabilitation centres for sex workers if they want to leave
their work and those who wish to continue should be provided their due rights
according to article 2164 of the constitution.65
5. There are frequent raids by the police with sex workers residing in the buildings
during the raids. The police officials threaten the sex workers, use abusive language
with them and even beat them. They suffer humiliation. They are forced to accept
their guilt. This practice should be stopped. The rehabilitation centres for sex workers
should be made. Harassment of sex workers should be stopped; they should be
allowed to meet their families.
6. To conclude, we can say that sex workers can be best educators. They can educate
their clients about HIV, AIDS and other communicable diseases. They should be
allowed to participate in public meetings and other health related programs. They are
capable of demanding their rights. We need such a society that can fight for the rights
of sex workers and bring them justice. People should make themselves free from
stereotype thoughts which are related with sex workers. 66
7. It is concluded that sex workers face a lot of problems, which can be financially or
socially, in the society.
SEX WORKERS AND THE LAWS GOVERNING THEM

8. The laws governing sex workers are contained in:

i. The Constitution of India 1950.
ii. Indian Penal Code 1860.
iii. Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956.
9. However, the legislation dealing with sex work is contained in Immoral Traffic
Prevention act, 1956.67 This act doesn't prohibit prostitution but prohibits commercial
activities of the profession. This act also makes it a criminal offence. According to
Section 3 of ITPA, 1956,68 one who sends girls to the brothel is punishable. Under the
ITPA, 1956, a magistrate can remove any prostitute from the place where she is
residing. The newly proposed bill 5(c)69, any person is punishable who visits brothel
for the purpose of sexual exploitation. However, there are some problems in

64
Id 2, see note 40.
65
Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2011) 11 SCC 538.
66
Supra note 46.
67
Immoral Traffic Prevention act, 1956.
68
Immoral Traffic Prevention act, 1956 , § 3.
69
Immoral Traffic Prevention act, 1956.§ 5, cl. (c).

11 | P a g e
 implementation of ITPA, 1956. This act was made to protect the exploitation of sex
workers. Through raids, the police target sex workers and not their brothel owners.
This creates problems of livelihood for prostitutes. Through various reasons this act
ITPA, 1956 could not be implemented.
a. There is a gap between number of crimes committed in reality and registration of
crimes. Many crimes that are reported are not registered.70
b. The rehabilitation homes are overcrowded and cannot accommodate large number of
sex workers who are convicted under ITPA, 1956.
c. There is a need to provide vocational and educational training to the prostitutes. The
counselling will also help as opined by Justice Ramaswamy in the case of Gaurav
Jain v. Union of India and others71 that-
“women found in flash trade should be viewed as victims of socio-economic
circumstances and not offenders of the society. Some police authorities have
set up the process of sensitization towards sex workers.”
10. Three systems of prostitution related to laws have been applied in legal strategies.
These three systems are -
i. Criminalization.
ii. Decriminalization.
iii. Legalization.
i. Criminalization aims at eradicating prostitution by criminalising the activities of all
categories of people involved in prostitution brothel keepers, Pimps, clients and
prostitutes.
ii. De-criminalisation aims at considering prostitution not as a crime but an agreement
between two consenting adults. Decriminalisation does not abolish prostitution but
targets trafficking in women and girls for prostitution. In decriminalization prostitutes
are not criminalised but they have the same rights as other citizens of the society. 72
Decriminalization will enable sex workers to do their work without police harassment.
It is a way to protect women's rights. It is also the way to make brothel owners
responsible and not prostitutes.73 The corrupt police officials also need to be punished.

70
NHRC-UNIFEM-ISS Project, A Report on Trafficking in Women and Children in India 2002-2003, Volume 1,
248, http://nhrc.nic.in/Documents/ReportonTrafficking.pdf.
71
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India and others AIR 1997 SC 3021.
72
Geetanjali Gangoli, Prostitution, Legalisation and Decriminalisation: Recent Debates, 33(10) ECONOMIC AND
POLITICAL WEEKLY 504,505 (1998).
73
Mellissa Farley, “Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart”: Prostitution Harms Women Even if Legalized or
Decriminalized, 10(10) VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 1087, 1090 (2004).

12 | P a g e
iii. Finally comes legalization. Attempts are made to license the prostitutes. Prostitution
satisfies his sexual needs of the persons and so it should be legalised. This system
requires prostitutes to register themselves for prostitution and get themselves checked
frequently for this work. ILO (International Labour Organization) suggest that poor
countries will benefit themselves economically through prostitution. However,
legalization will create a gap between legal sex workers and illegal sex workers.
Many sex workers are not in favour of this as they will be publicly seen.74
11. To conclude we can say that there is a need to respect the human rights of sex
workers. The legislature needs to provide all the basic rights of sex workers that are
granted under international law and municipal law. There is a need to improve their
social conditions and re-habitation homes. A distinction needs to be made between
sex workers who have joined this willingly and those who are forced in this
profession. Life insurance and voters’ rights should also be given to them. The stigma
attached with sex workers should be removed and they should be given the right to
carry on their profession like other professions.
12. Hence, there are various existing laws which governs the trade and occupation of sex
workers.
WHY PROFESSION OF PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE LEGALISED

13. Prostitution should be considered as a profession like other professions. If some

changes are done in this profession, the lives of prostitutes can be better. The
prostitutes should be made aware about their rights and interests, education, health
freedom to choose and deny, financial aid and compensation for injury and other
benefits. Article 1475 of the constitution says
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India, Prohibition of discrimination
on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth76

14. There is an urgent need to legalise this profession. The minors who are engaged in
this profession can be saved from their sufferings. There are about 10 million children
who are engaged in the prostitution.

74
Janice C. Raymond, Prostitution on Demand: Legalizing Buyers as Sexual Consumers, 10(10) VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN 1156, 1162 (2004).
75
Id, see note 63.
76
Supra note, see note 75.

13 | P a g e
 15. Regular medical check-ups will reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. By
legalising this profession, rapes and other assaults can be lessened. By legalising
prostitution, forced prostitution will be eliminated. By removing pimps and
middleman, criminal behaviour will be decreased. Prostitution is 8.4 billion US
dollars industry. By legalising it, the government income will increase and the rights
of the people engaged in this profession will be protected.
16. Every person has a right to use his/her body. Nobody can force anybody to adopt his
moral standards. Prostitution has no side-effects like drugs and drinking. It does not
harm a person physically and mentally. Regulated prostitution will protect the rights
of the sex workers. When a sex worker is assaulted and not paid, she has the right to
complaint the same.
In the light of the above points, it is beneficial to legalise this profession as it will
lessen the burden of the government. It will also protect the rights of the sex
workers and give these people a chance to live a normal life that they deserve. 77

77
Forestiere A, “To Protect Women, Legalize Prostitution” (Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review)
<https://harvardcrcl.org/to-protect-women-legalize-prostitution/> accessed November 10, 2021.

14 | P a g e