Kerala High Court Landmark Judgment: “Customer” of Sex Worker is an “Inducer,” Can Be Prosecuted Under ITPA

Kerala High Court has ruled that individuals who avail sexual services from a sex worker in a brothel are not mere ‘customers’ but are actively ‘inducing’ prostitution and can be prosecuted under the stringent provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), 1956.

The ruling was delivered on July 21, 2025, by Justice V.G. Arun while partially allowing a petition (Crl.M.C. No. 8198/2022) filed by one Sarath Chandran, the third accused in Crime No. 331/2021 of Peroorkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

The case originated from a police raid on March 18, 2021, at a building in Kudappanakkunnu. The police found the petitioner, Sarath Chandran, and a woman naked on a bed. Another man and woman were found in a separate room. Investigations revealed that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had procured three women and were running a brothel, charging ₹2,000 per hour, of which ₹1,000 was paid to the women.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 3 (keeping a brothel), 4 (living on earnings of prostitution), 5(1)(d) (inducing a person to carry on prostitution), and 7 (prostitution in a notified area) of the ITPA Act. He sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that as a ‘client,’ he could not be prosecuted under these sections.

Court’s Key Observations and Rationale

The petitioner’s counsel argued that existing precedents, like Radhakrishnan K. v. State of Kerala and Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala, held that a client does not “carry on the business” of prostitution and is thus immune from prosecution under Sections 5 and 7.

Justice Arun, however, diverged from this view, aligning instead with the court’s recent rulings in Mathew v. State of Kerala (2022) and Abhijith v. State of Kerala (2023). The court delved into the object and purpose of the ITPA Act, which is to prevent the commercial exploitation and trafficking of persons.

The court made several crucial observations:

• “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… The payment therefore can only be perceived as an inducement to make the sex worker offer his/ her body.”
• “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 emphatically stated that “if the inducer is termed as a customer that would be contrary to the object of the Act,” which aims to punish those who exploit the system, not the victims trapped in it.

The Final Verdict

Based on this reasoning, the High Court passed a mixed order:

• Proceedings Quashed: The charges against the petitioner under Sections 3 (keeping a brothel) and 4 (living on earnings of prostitution) were quashed.
• Proceedings to Continue: The court permitted the prosecution to continue its case against the petitioner for the offences under:
  • Section 5(1)(d): For inducing a person to carry on prostitution.
  • Section 7: For carrying on prostitution in a notified area. The court left it to the trial court to determine whether the brothel was situated in a notified area based on evidence.

This judgment marks a pivotal shift in the judicial interpretation of a client’s role in the ecosystem of prostitution, redefining them from passive consumers to active participants who fuel the trade, thereby making them liable for prosecution under India’s anti-trafficking laws.

Frequently Asked Questions