Prostitution in India: Caught in Legal Limbo

Prostitution in India sits on a legal fault line, neither fully legal nor outright banned.

The result is a murky zone where sex workers survive in the gaps between the law and its enforcement.

They are allowed to sell sex, but almost everything surrounding it, from renting a room to advertising services, is criminalised.

This contradiction has created a system that is both exploitative and hypocritical, where rights exist in theory but vanish in practice.

Despite incremental progress in the courts, particularly with Supreme Court rulings affirming the dignity of sex workers, real change is slow.

Harassment, social stigma, and institutional neglect remain deeply embedded.

The profession is tolerated in silence, yet publicly condemned, leaving sex workers exposed to violence and systemic abuse with little recourse.

In this legal twilight, questions of justice, rights, and safety hang unresolved.

Legal yet Criminalised

Prostitution in India is not explicitly outlawed. However, nearly all associated acts are. This includes brothel-keeping, pimping, and public solicitation.

According to Amritbidya Ventures, “Prostitution is not ‘per se illegal’, but activities surrounding it are.”

The key legislation is the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

It targets trafficking and exploitation rather than prostitution itself. But it criminalises almost every aspect of the trade. Brothel-keeping carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. Procuring a minor can lead to life imprisonment.

This creates what legal observers describe as a loophole-ridden framework.

As one commentator put it: “Prostitution has always been legal in India. Organised prostitution (pimping, brothels etc) is still illegal.”

Critics say the legislation aims to suppress sex work without confronting it directly. This leaves those in the profession with few safe legal options.

Further complicating the legal structure is the ambiguity in enforcement. Police discretion plays a major role in how laws are applied.

Sex workers often find themselves harassed or arrested on vague grounds, even when engaging in technically legal activities.

This discretionary policing contributes to a climate of fear and reinforces marginalisation.

Boundaries and Restrictions

Prostitution is subject to strict location-based restrictions.

It cannot take place within 200 metres of public areas. These include schools, religious sites, and hospitals.

This forces many sex workers to operate in hidden or dangerous areas, increasing their vulnerability.

In densely populated urban areas, finding spaces that comply with these restrictions is virtually impossible.

As a result, law enforcement agencies frequently use these rules to justify evictions and raids.

This makes sex work unpredictable and insecure. The lack of regulated zones further intensifies exploitation, especially by landlords and local mafias.

Supreme Court Interventions

A landmark moment came in 2011 with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of West Bengal.

Karmaskar had murdered a sex worker in Kolkata. When his conviction reached the Supreme Court, it was upheld. But the Court also went further.

Invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, it ruled that sex workers have a right to live with dignity. This extended full constitutional protections to sex workers, marking a pivotal shift in judicial thinking.

The case remained active for more than a decade.

In May 2022, a bench of Justices L Nageswar Rao, BR Gavai, and AS Bopanna issued further directions.

These strengthened protections for sex workers and confirmed the judiciary’s commitment to reform.

Legal scholars called the ruling “the most powerful order protecting the rights of sex workers”.

It recognised their rights to dignity, privacy, and protection from violence.

It also affirmed that the state has a duty to ensure these rights are respected in practice. These directions underscore the shift from punitive oversight to rights-based protection.

Legal Protections and Police Conduct

The 2022 ruling introduced vital reforms in police procedure.

The Court directed police to treat sex workers’ complaints like any other citizen. They were not to be treated as criminals by default.

Further, it prohibited the harassment of sex workers during raids or inspections. Their children were not to be removed from them purely due to their profession.

This marked a crucial step in aligning policing practices with constitutional principles.

Prior to this, sex workers routinely faced humiliation, coercion, and extortion by local police. Many avoided approaching authorities for help, fearing arrest or worse.

The ruling aimed to end this cycle of abuse by embedding accountability into police conduct.

Risks & Exploitation

Despite these legal protections, many sex workers continue to face abuse.

A 2011 study found that sex workers did not consider being beaten or injured as violence. Their reasoning: “He paid for it, so why is it violence?”

This normalisation of abuse highlights the deep exploitation and psychological harm many endure.

The Supreme Court acknowledged this in its 2022 ruling. It ordered that all victims of sexual assault, including sex workers, be given access to full emergency medical care.

Sex workers are also vulnerable to trafficking and debt bondage.

Many are brought into the trade under coercion or false pretences.

Once involved, exiting becomes difficult due to economic dependence, social exclusion, and lack of alternatives.

Health Concerns

Sex workers also face significant health risks. Chief among them is the danger of contracting sexually transmitted infections, especially HIV. The National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) identifies female sex workers as a high-risk group.

Targeted interventions have been introduced to reduce transmission rates.

These include awareness campaigns, access to condoms, regular health checks, and treatment services.

The government recognises that effective HIV prevention cannot occur without protecting those most vulnerable.

Despite these efforts, stigma remains a barrier.

Many sex workers avoid clinics for fear of exposure or mistreatment.

Mobile health units and peer educators have improved outreach, but comprehensive coverage is still lacking.

The intersection of health and human rights remains critical in this fight.

Stigma and Social Perceptions

Sex workers are subjected to severe stigma, often rooted in conservative cultural values.

Many view prostitution as immoral, a threat to family structures and marriage. This moralistic stance drives sex workers to society’s margins.

Stigmatisation also affects how sex workers view themselves.

The Supreme Court recognised this social exclusion.

It stated that sex workers “bear the brunt of social injustice and stigma… deprived of their right to life and personal liberty”.

Public perception is deeply influenced by media portrayals and religious doctrine.

Sex workers are often cast as vectors of disease or moral decay.

This dehumanisation justifies neglect and abuse, both by the public and the state. Countering this requires not just legal reform, but a cultural shift in how sex work is understood.

Competing Perspectives

The debate over prostitution in India remains polarised.

Many regard it as exploitative, degrading, and inherently abusive. Others argue that it should be treated as legitimate labour.

They say that legalising sex work would offer women safety, security, and bodily autonomy.

Proponents of reform contend that legal recognition would curb trafficking, reduce sexually transmitted diseases, and empower sex workers.

The current halfway approach, they argue, only worsens conditions for those already at risk.

Opponents worry that legalisation would encourage trafficking or legitimise exploitation.

Feminist scholars are divided, with some supporting legalisation as empowerment, while others view it as institutionalised patriarchy.

These conflicting views continue to shape public policy and delay decisive action.

Government Initiatives

In response to the Supreme Court’s directives, the Indian government has launched several initiatives.

These include awareness campaigns highlighting the dangers of commercial sex exploitation.

The National Commission for Women was tasked with ensuring the rights of sex workers are upheld.

Court orders have also driven reforms in rehabilitation. Governments were instructed to audit protective homes, many of which held women against their will.

These audits led to the release of adult women unlawfully detained.

Schemes aimed at livelihood support have emerged, offering basic financial assistance and skill-building.

However, these programmes are often underfunded and inconsistently implemented. Bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of coordination between agencies further limit their impact.

Rehabilitation and Skill Development

The Court directed both central and state governments to develop training programmes.

These would help sex workers acquire vocational skills.

The aim is to offer them a genuine choice, whether to remain in the profession or seek other employment.

As legal scholar Professor Prabha Kotiswaran has noted, these measures respect bodily autonomy.

She said: “A woman prostituted for poverty rather than pleasure… can earn her income from skill if given a chance.”

Success stories from pilot initiatives in Maharashtra and Karnataka suggest that given the opportunity, many women do transition to new careers. However, long-term success depends on social acceptance and sustained economic support.

Without these, many return to sex work out of necessity.

India remains trapped in a contradictory stance on prostitution.

While the Supreme Court has made historic interventions, the law continues to criminalise the profession’s infrastructure.

Reform is urgently needed.

Legislative clarity has been recommended since 2016, but no action has followed.

Without comprehensive reform, India’s sex workers will remain in a system where their work is legal but criminalised, recognised but stigmatised.

The path forward must address both legal inconsistencies and entrenched social prejudice.

Only then can dignity and safety become more than constitutional promises.