The rule that Delhi struck down from its prison manual this month—which segregated sex workers and "brothel-keepers" from other women prisoners—was written in the 19th century when the British administration was concerned about keeping venereal disease away from its soldiers.
Delhi deleted three such provisions this month. Himachal Pradesh scrapped a similar rule in July. They are the first two Indian states to do so, acting on a recommendation by senior advocate S Muralidhar, the Supreme Court's amicus curiae in an ongoing suo motu case on discrimination in jails. Muralidhar has identified 16 other states and Union territories with similar rules still on their prison manuals.
Kenneth Ballhatchet’s 1980 book Race, Sex and Class under the Raj documents how British military and colonial authorities regulated Indian sex workers primarily to protect their soldiers from syphilis. According to historians, the empire reasoned that the practice was necessary to ensure the fitness of the British army, and preserve the imperial racial hierarchy and protect public health.
Stephen Legg, in a 2009 paper in the journal Social History titled Governing prostitution in colonial Delhi, described how the colonial administration in the city used to register brothels, examine women it identified as sex workers and discipline those it did not, primarily with nearby garrisons in mind.
{{/usCountry}}Stephen Legg, in a 2009 paper in the journal Social History titled Governing prostitution in colonial Delhi, described how the colonial administration in the city used to register brothels, examine women it identified as sex workers and discipline those it did not, primarily with nearby garrisons in mind.
{{/usCountry}}Also Read: Delhi ends segregation of sex workers, brothel-keepers from female prisoners
Building on the Cantonment Act of 1864, the Indian Contagious Diseases Act of 1868 introduced the wider legal framework. Women suspected of sex work had to register with the authorities, undergo mandatory medical examinations and remain under police surveillance. Those who did not comply could be confined and punished. Delhi's Lock Hospital reports from the 1860s and colonial residency files record how the rules were applied.
The same concerns extended from the cantonment into the general prison system. Historian Satadru Sen, in a 2002 paper titled 'The Female Jails of Colonial India' published in the Indian Economic and Social History Review, wrote that colonial prison administrators believed women identified as sex workers would corrupt other female inmates, and so they had to be housed separately. Colonial jail rules placed them under provisions meant for prisoners of “bad character”.
Also read: Indian jails: Prisoners of the caste system
Indian society took on some of the same thinking. Through the second half of the nineteenth century, sections of reformers and religious groups condemned prostitution, calling it a sign of cultural decline. Historian Sumanta Banerjee, in his study of prostitution in colonial Bengal, argued that British regulation and the disapproval of prostitution by the emerging middle class came to reinforce each other through this period. British health policy and social conservatism in India, therefore, overlapped.
The inherited language also survived Independence. The Model Prison Manual, 2016 — a template used by some states to draft their own rules — still specifies separating "prostitutes", "brothel-keepers" and "procuresses" from other women prisoners.
Muralidhar's recommendation came after the Supreme Court's May 29 judgment in Prajwala vs Union of India case, which cautioned against treating prostitutes and sex workers as accused when they are, in many instances, victims of trafficking and exploitation who deserve rehabilitation rather than further stigma.
Muralidhar, in a report submitted to SC, noted that the court had rejected the "false binary" that treats a person as either a victim or an offender. The judgment, the report said, 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.
Also read: In overcrowded prisons, justice has lost its way
The national capital has now deleted 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 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.
Sixteen other states and Union territories still have the older wording on their books.