Overview
- The court quashed charges tied to running or profiting from a brothel under Sections 3 and 4 but allowed prosecution to proceed under Sections 5(1)(d) and 7.
- Justice V.G. Arun rejected the defense that a brothel visitor is a mere customer, stating a sex worker is not a product in a commercial transaction.
- Payments in brothels were described as inducing sex workers to engage in prostitution, with much of the money flowing to brothel keepers.
- The case stems from a 2021 raid in Thiruvananthapuram’s Kudappanakunnu area where the petitioner was found with a woman and others were accused of managing the brothel.
- As a single-judge High Court decision, the interpretation clarifies how ITPA applies to brothel visitors and could be tested in future prosecutions or appeals.