Govt ends segregation of sex workers, brothel-keepers from female prisoners

The Delhi government has ended the discriminatory practice of segregating sex workers and brothel-keepers from other women prisoners in the Capital’s jails after a Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae flagged the provision during an ongoing suo motu case on discrimination inside Indian prisons

The Delhi government has ended the discriminatory practice of segregating sex workers and brothel-keepers from other women prisoners in the Capital’s jails after a Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae flagged the provision during an ongoing suo motu case on discrimination inside Indian prisons.

The move also follows the Supreme Court’s May 29 judgment in Prajwala v Union of India, which cautioned against treating prostitutes and sex workers as accused when they are, in many cases, victims of trafficking and exploitation who deserve rehabilitation rather than further stigma. (Representative photo)

So far, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh are the only two states so far to implement the recommendation made by amicus curiae and senior advocate S Muralidhar, who was tasked by the Supreme Court with identifying discriminatory provisions in prison laws and jail manuals across states and ensuring their deletion or amendment.

The move also follows the Supreme Court’s May 29 judgment in Prajwala v Union of India, which cautioned against treating prostitutes and sex workers as accused when they are, in many cases, victims of trafficking and exploitation who deserve rehabilitation rather than further stigma.

In his latest report, submitted to the court on July 30, Muralidhar said several prison manuals, including the Model Prison Manual, 2016, continue to mandate the segregation of prisoners described as “prostitutes”, “brothel-keepers” or “procuresses”.

“These provisions appear to be based on assumptions about the influence such persons may have on other women prisoners and operate primarily as a means of furthering stigma,” the report said.

Referring to the Prajwala ruling, the report noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the “false binary” that treats a person as either a victim or an offender. The judgment recognised that a person prosecuted under the soliciting provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, may simultaneously be a victim of trafficking under the same law.

Realising this mandate of law, Muralidhar, assisted by advocate Ninni Susan Thomas, held online meetings with all states and Union territories, pointing out the specific provisions that discriminate between prisoners under various categories based on their sex, gender, or nature of crime.

During these consultations, the Delhi government informed the amicus that it had deleted three offending provisions: Rule 1434(III) and Rule 92(25) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and Section 28(2) of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000.

Rule 1434 provided for the segregation of sex workers and brothel-keepers within the category of women prisoners, while Rule 92 permitted segregation of “prisoners of known bad character”. Section 28(2) of the Act required that female prisoners convicted or charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, or for offences involving “grave moral depravity”, be kept separate from other women prisoners.

Muralidhar identified similar provisions in 16 other states and Union territories. Himachal Pradesh amended its Prison Manual in July, ending the practice of segregating sex workers. Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Rajasthan have informed the amicus that amendments have been proposed and are awaiting government approval. Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand and West Bengal are yet to respond.

The matter is pending before a bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala, who also authored the Prajwala judgment. The ruling observed that while prosecuting traffickers remains essential, “the human rights approach insists that prosecution cannot be the sole response” and requires protection and assistance for trafficked persons.

Muralidhar’s report stated that he had emphasised to states that continuing to classify sex workers separately would reinforce the assumption that they are “criminals rather than victims”.

The suo motu proceeding titled “Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India” was instituted pursuant to a 2024 judgment in the Sukanya Shanta case where specific instances from Prison Manuals across states was pointed out which showed categorisation of prisoners based on their caste/community and assigning of menial jobs in jails for them. In January last year, the suo motu proceedings was initiated to take up progress by states and UTs in removing or amending offending provisions from their jail statutes.

This is a continuing process, and several rounds of meetings with state/UT officials and the amicus have already taken place. An updated report will be filed before the next hearing date on September 10.