IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 135 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

BUDHADEV KARMASKAR .. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL .. Respondent(s)

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

DURBAR MAHILA SAMANWAYA COMMITTEE

Through

Secretary

12/5, Nilmoni Mitra Street

Kolkata 700006 ... Impleaded Respondent

AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY

THE UNION OF INDIA DATED 04/05/12 FOR THE

MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE COURT

DATED 19/07/2011

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

I, Bharti Dey, Secretary of the Respondent Society above-named,

having its office at 12/5, Nilmoni Mitra Street, Kolkata 700006, do

hereby solemnly affirm and state as under;

authorized to affirm and swear this affidavit on behalf of the

Impleaded Respondent.

2. That the Respondent Society was impleaded as a „necessary party‟

by this Hon‟ble Court in proceedings in the present case which

concerns sex workers, vide its order dated 04/05/2011, which read

as follows:

“Mr. Pradeep Ghosh, learned amicus curiae informed us

that in the Red Light Areas of Kolkata, there are some

NGOs and Co-operative Societies like Durbar Mahila

Samanwaya Committee and Khush Co-operative Society

of the Sex Workers in Kolkatta. We direct that they be

impleaded as necessary party in this case and service on

them be effected through Mr. Tara Chand Sharma,

learned Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal

which shall file their response in this case after serving a

copy of the same on the learned amicus curiae.”

3. That the Respondent Society was impleaded by this Hon‟ble Court suo

motto as a „necessary party‟ because it is an association of sex

workers themselves. That in doing so, this Hon‟ble Court affirmed that

sex workers‟ involvement is essential to the present case, which

stems from concern over the right to life with dignity of a sex worker

under Article 21.

Respondent Society filed an affidavit dated 15/07/11 highlighting its

activities in the areas of health, education and rehabilitation of sex

workers, shortcomings of existing schemes and offering suggestions for

making rehabilitation more effective and meaningful to sex workers.

5. That subsequently, by its order dated 19/07/11, this Hon‟ble Court

constituted a Panel and inducted the Respondent Society as a member,

which order reads as follows:-

“We hereby constitute a Panel for assisting us in this

matter consisting of the following:-

(i) Mr. Pradip Ghosh, Senior Counsel who will be the

Chairman of the Panel

(ii) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Counsel

(iii) Usha Multipurpose Co-operative Society through its

President/Secretary

(iv) Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee through its

President/Secretary

(v) Roshni, through Ms. Saima Hasan 152, Golf Links,

New Delhi.”

6. That since then, the Respondent Society has been attending to the

proceedings before this Hon‟ble Court and participating in Panel meetings,

offering the critical perspective and practical insights of sex workers, who are

the subject matter of the present case, while also making constructive

suggestions.
7. That in its order dated 02/08/11, this Hon‟ble Court asked the Chairman of

the Panel to co-opt suitable members from Mumbai and Chennai, as there

was no representation from these cities in the Panel and the Hon‟ble Court

had directed that the problems of sex workers in the four cities of Delhi,

Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai be taken up first.

8. That subsequently, the Chairman of the Panel co-opted the following

members to the Panel:- a) South India AIDS Action Programme, Chennai

represented by Ms. Indumathi Ravi Shankar; b) PRERANA, NGO based in

Mumbai; c) SHAKTI VAHINI, NGO based in Delhi, represented by Mr. Ravi

Kant and, d) Mr. Tariq Khan, social activist, based in Lucknow. The induction

of these new members to the Panel was duly recorded by this Honb‟le Court

in its order dated 24/08/11.

9. That unlike the abovementioned members of the Panel, the Respondent

Society is a party to the case and was inducted on the Panel by this Hon‟ble

Court itself.

10. That the Respondent Society draws its membership from and represents

over 65,000 female, male and transgendered sex workers across West

Bengal. It is the one of the largest organizations of sex workers not only in

India but all over the world.

11. That the Respondent Society values the inherent dignity, worth and

potential of sex workers and strives towards their social, economic, political

and legal empowerment. The Respondent Society‟s interventions are pillared

on the „3Rs – Respect, Reliance and Recognition‟, that is, respect for sex
work and sex workers, reliance on sex workers‟ knowledge and wisdom and,

recognition of their human and professional agency.

12. That in the 1990s, the Respondent Society pioneered the peer-based or

community-led approach to HIV prevention in Sonagachi, Kolkata, which is

now an established model for delivering health services to marginalized

communities under the country‟s National AIDS Control Programme.

13. That the community-led paradigm spearheaded by the Respondent

Society is distinct from other conventional programmes on sex work in that it

does not consider sex workers‟ as „objects‟ to be „saved‟. Instead, the

Respondent Society strives to enhance sex workers‟ consciousness and

capacity to effect changes in their individual lives as well as the larger

structural environment. This approach has proven successful in reducing HIV

transmission among female sex workers and consequently antenatal women

in the country.

14. That the Respondent Society has adopted the same strategy of self-

regulation in preventing trafficking of underage and unwilling women and

supporting those who wish to give up sex work. It is this unique experience

and perspective that the Respondent Society brings to the Panel that has

been tasked with advising this Hon‟ble Court on meaningful policies and

programmes for sex workers.

15. That the Union of India‟s contentions in its Additional Affidavit dated

17/04/12 and the Application dated 04/05/12 for the Modification of this

Hon‟ble Court‟s order dated 19/07/11 are unfounded and based on a

as decided by this Hon‟ble Court in the order dated 19/07/11.

16. That the Union of India has opposed the Respondent Society‟s

membership to the Panel on the ground that the Respondent Society has

challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter “ITPA”) in W.P 10155(W)/2010

before the Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta and that it has a stated view on

women in prostitution and ITPA.

17. That the case in WP 10155(W)/2010 before the Hon‟ble Court of Calcutta

is entirely different from the case before this Hon‟ble Court. The former

concerns itself with the compatibility of some ITPA provisions with Part III of

the Constitution of India. The present case arose from a criminal appeal on

behalf of the appellant – Budhadev Karmaskar who was sentenced to life for

murdering a sex worker. It transformed into a public interest litigation, on

the basis of this Hon‟ble Court‟s observation in its order dated 14/02/11 that

sex workers are human beings and are entitled to a life of dignity under

Article 21.

18. The present case does not involve the vires of ITPA, nor does the case

before the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court involve the question of rehabilitation

of sex workers. The two are entirely different. Therefore, the potential

conflict of interest contended by the Union of India in Para 4 and Para 6 of

the Application dated 04/05/12 is unfounded and incorrect.

a ground for ousting the Respondent Society from the Panel.

20. That some of the other members of the Panel also have a stated view on

women in prostitution and ITPA and have been involved in litigation against

the Union of India on the said subject. (Shakti Vahini v Union of India and

Ors, Writ Petition (C) No. 190 of 2002, before this Hon‟ble Court and,

PRERANA v Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (C) No. 70/2003, also

before this Hon‟ble Court. Both petitions were concerned with prostitution

and trafficking under the ITPA.)

21. That the Union of India has not questioned or objected to the nomination

of other members on the Panel, despite their involvement in litigation and

advocacy on ITPA. That the Respondent Society is being unfairly singled out

for being a sex workers‟ collective and voicing opinions, that are often critical

of the State‟s response to sex work.

22. That the Respondent Society is the only sex workers‟ organization

represented on the Panel, whose scrutiny and insights are necessary for the

formulation of meaningful recommendations. That the participation of

citizens and communities in decisions that affect their lives is an important

constituent of good and democratic governance, as recognized in

international and domestic laws, in consonance with the principles of natural

justice. At the cost of repetition, it is contended that the recommendations

of the Panel and subsequent directions passed by this Hon‟ble Court on

rehabilitation will be effective only if sex workers‟ accept them and extend

their full participation.

Panel, namely conditions conducive for sex workers who wish to continue

working as sex workers with dignity, on the ground that it tacitly amounts to

„legalization‟ of sex work, which is contrary to the law of the land. That the

Union of India‟s contention is totally unfounded is evident from the fact that

time and again, this Hon‟ble Court has reiterated that the observations made

and orders passed by the Bench do not imply „legalization‟ of sex work, that

is, the regulation of sex work by law. Further still, this Hon‟ble Court cannot,

even if it wanted to, change public policy on sex work, which is the sole

prerogative of the legislature.

24. That the Union of India‟s contention in Para 5 of its Application dated

04/05/12 that sex work is intrinsically linked to trafficking is inaccurate. In

Para 7 of the said Application, the Union of India has itself admitted to

persons entering and engaging in sex work voluntarily, without coercion,

deception or fraud – which are the constituents of human trafficking.

25. That the Union of India‟s contention that sex work is unlawful is

incorrect. Neither the ITPA nor any other law for the time being in force

criminalises prostitution, that is, the sale and purchase of sexual services by

consenting adults. On the contrary, provisions under the ITPA have been

carefully drafted so as not to punish prostitution or prostitutes. For example,

Section 3 of the Act prohibits keeping or managing or acting in or assisting in

the keeping or management of a brothel or offering premises for use as a

brothel but does not criminalise working in a brothel as a sex worker. Section

4 punishes persons living off the earnings of prostitution of another person

but does not criminalise a sex worker for making a living from prostitution.
Section 5 penalises procuring or inducing a person for prostitution but does

not criminalise a sex worker for engaging in sex work. In the same vein,

Section 6 of ITPA criminalises detaining a person in a brothel or premises for

prostitution but does not condemn a sex worker for being present in

premises for prostitution.

26. That the remit of the Panel, as endorsed by this Hon‟ble Court in its

order dated 19/07/11 is not contrary to ITPA or any other law for the time

being in force in the country.

27. That the three terms of reference of the Panel, as laid down in this

Hon‟ble Court‟s order dated 19/07/11 must be read together and not in

isolation. That this Hon‟ble Court has rightly entrusted the Panel with an all-

encompassing mandate concerning entry, exit and continuation in sex work,

premised on consent or the lack thereof, of the individual concerned. It is

expected that when the Panel deliberates on measures to prevent trafficking,

it will examine means to stop the entry of unwilling persons in sex work.

Similarly, when the Panel makes recommendations for rehabilitation, it will

review the needs and concerns of those who want to discontinue sex work.

The Panel would then deal with the remaining problem, that is, the condition

of sex workers who are neither trafficked nor seek rehabilitation. In Para 7 of

its Application dated 04/05/12, the Union of India has itself alluded to sex

workers who enter and remain in sex work voluntarily. Only when the Panel

addresses the three aspects of preventing entry, supporting exit and

ensuring safety of those in sex work will its submission to this Hon‟ble Court

be cogent and complete.

problems in sex work is evident from the observations made early on, in the

order dated 14/02/11, which read as follows:-

"This is a case of brutal murder of a sex worker. Sex

workers are also human beings and no one has a right

to assault or murder them. A person becomes a

prostitute not because she enjoys it but because of

poverty. Society must have sympathy towards the sex

workers and must not look down upon them. They are

also entitled to a life of dignity in view of Article 21 of

the Constitution.”

The above mentioned observation requires that sex workers be protected

from violence, disease, intimidation, harassment and discrimination, in other

words, be accorded with the right to life with dignity.

29. That with respect to rehabilitation, it is incumbent on the Union of India,

State Governments as well as the Panel to observe the following instruction

of this Hon‟ble Court‟s in the order dated 02/08/11:-

“We make it clear that any rehabilitation of the sex

workers will not be coercive in any manner and it shall

be voluntary on the part of the sex workers.”

It is amply clear that rehabilitation cannot be forcibly imposed on sex

workers. While sex workers can be encouraged to seek alternatives, forcing

Hon‟ble Court, which has been guided by the beacon of the right to life with

dignity of sex workers under Article 21.

30. That the Union of India‟s contention in Paras 9 and 10 of the Application

dated 04/05/12 is incorrect. That the provision of services for the health,

safety and education of sex workers and their children, is not in conflict with

efforts to counter trafficking or support rehabilitation.

31. That the averment made in Para 11 of the Application dated 04/05/12

that the Government has no policy or scheme for those who willingly enter

and engage in sex work is incorrect. That the Department of AIDS Control/

National AIDS Control Organisation, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Government of India supports “Targetted Interventions” among groups at

high risk of HIV transmission, including female sex workers. Under this

programme, a female sex worker is understood to mean “an adult woman

who engages in consensual sex for money or payment in kind, as her

principal means of livelihood.” (National AIDS Control Organisation, Targeted

Interventions under NACP III, Operational Guidelines, Volume I, Core High

Risk Groups at page 10). Services offered to such women include outreach,

education and the safe space of a drop-in centre, clinical care through

regular medical check ups, screening and treatment for sexually transmitted

infections, referral to HIV counseling and testing and anti retroviral

treatment, supply of condoms for safer sex and support for an enabling

environment with mobilization and capacity building of sex workers. At the

end of March 2012, the National AIDS Control Programme was reaching over

7 lakh female sex workers through 490 targetted interventions across the
country. (Department of AIDS Control, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,

Annual Report 2011-12 at page 12). The Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare annually spends approximately Rupees 63.7 crores on preventing

HIV infection among female sex workers.

32. That in light of the above submissions, the Respondent Society prays

before this Hon‟ble Court to dismiss the Application dated 05/05/12 by the

Union of India for the modification of this Hon‟ble Court‟s order dated

19/07/11. Leave of this Hon‟ble Court is also sought to file additional

affidavits, submissions and documents, if the need arises.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, Bharti Dey, the deponent above-named and the authorised

signatory for the Impleaded Respondent above named do hereby

verify and state that the contents from paras 1 to 32 of the above

affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

information, no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from and I believe the same to be true.

Verified at Kolkata on day of July, 2012.

DEPONENT