Sessions Court Orders Release of Sex Worker; Cites Legal Observations

In a significant development, a sessions court recently has ordered the release of a 34-year-old commercial sex worker who had been detained in a government shelter home. The court's ruling highlighted the legality of engaging in sex work, stating that it is not considered an offense unless it takes place in public. A report published in the Free Press Journal mentioned that this decision comes as a direct response to an earlier order issued by a magistrate.

 Advocate Cites Constitutional Rights and Supreme Court Observations

The woman's advocate argued passionately for her release, asserting her fundamental right to freedom as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. The advocate further referenced landmark Supreme Court judgments that distinguish voluntary sex work from running brothels, emphasizing that the former is not illegal. These legal precedents formed the crux of the advocate's defense.

Court Criticizes Magistrate's Decision-making Process

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the magistrate's decision-making process, particularly the absence of input from a panel of social workers or respected individuals. The court contended that such perspectives could have provided valuable insights. Instead, the magistrate solely relied on a personal inquiry with the woman, which the court deemed insufficient.

Care for Children and Assertion of Fundamental Rights

Taking into account the woman's circumstances, Additional Sessions Judge CV Patil acknowledged her responsibility as a mother of two children who relied on her care. The court recognized her as an adult capable of making her own decisions and reiterated her fundamental right, as outlined in Article 19, to reside, settle, and move freely within India.

Detention Order Challenged and Overturned

Notably, the woman had previously been rescued and subsequently released after submitting a written commitment to abstain from sex work. Judge Patil emphasized that the magistrate's detention order was solely based on her past record, disregarding factors such as her age and rights under Article 19. The court highlighted the absence of any allegations of engaging in public sex work, deeming the detention unjustifiable.