_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal
Citation - (2011) 10 SCC 277
Relevant Acts and Section - Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Parties Involved -
Appellant - Budhadev Karmaskar
Petitioner - State of West Bengal
Facts of the Case
In 1999, the appellant - Budhadev Karmaskar, had cruelly beaten the head of a sick prostitute in the red area of Calcutta for refusing to have intercourse with him. Since the head of the deceased had been knocked against the floor of the room several times, the injuries sustained by the deceased led to her brutal death for the smallest reason, which was to protect her mind and self-respect.
As a result of this action, the appellant was convicted for the crime of murdering a prostitute on assault charges that resulted in murder. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court have supported the conviction on the grounds that prostitutes should not be undermined but should be able to indulge in prostitution with their dignity and self-interest, not by force or deception.
The Supreme court also took steps to help those prostitutes who were forced to perform sexual intercourse in the form of prostitution by forming a panel led by the Senior Advocate, Mr. Pradip Ghosh, as Chairman, with four other panel members and other staff members to provide assistance. In this regard, the panel suggested providing them assistance by giving Rs. 10,00,000/- from Central Government, Rs. 5,00,000/- from the State Government, and Rs. 2,00,000/- from Union Areas approved by SC to teach the technical and other skills taught to the prostitutes, which will enable them to earn a living and re-enter society with dignity.
Issues of the Case
How can you apply the scope of Article 21 and the definition of 'Life' within it to safeguard the Right to Live with Dignity granted to prostitutes and their children?
To determine a place of residence for the newly formed panel.
How can you rescue and rehabilitate prostitutes in a safer place?
The issues raised were decided by the Judicial Bench, which was comprising of Judge Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra.
Arguments of the Petitioner
An additional DIG of Tamil Nadu Police, Ms. Archana Ramasundaram, has been arguing with the petitioner while dealing with rescued victims of trafficking in large traps; they had to face the fact that managers and sex workers were informed of their rescue mission in advance that made them pay attention to their visit.
In addition, the petitioner also claims that the girls are forced to enter the prostitution business and are placed in various rackets, especially by their family members, through the involvement of traffickers and other such people. Consequently, the petitioners argued that unless communication between traffickers, brothel owners, and family members of the victims were disrupted, a successful rescue operation would fail, and rehabilitation would be even more difficult.
In addition, the petitioner also argued that the Legal Services Authority of the state would provide a helpline number to NGOs and State Machineries to rescue and assist victims of sexual exploitation who are forced to continue their work without consent and acceptance. This will also help them to take any legal action against those who exploited them or seek any legal advice on remedial action in case they want to remain in that profession.
On behalf of the petitioner, the council also stated that the funds required by the panel to operate should only be enforced in sex-prone provinces or provinces with red light areas and prostitutes working there.
Arguments of the Respondents
The defendant's attorney argued that the funds needed to enable the panel to rehabilitate victims of the sex trade should be submitted to the panel immediately so that they can perform the duties allocated to them. The council also argued that the fundraising was really necessary to hold workshops and conferences to allow professionals from various walks of life to get involved in sharing knowledge through different types of training not only in big cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta but also in lesser-known areas.
The council also said that the share of the panel's proceeds would also be used for advertising and printing publications as part of a campaign to reduce the discrimination faced by the prostitutes for their better rehabilitation in the society and to facilitate the involvement of more professionals.
Judgment of the Case
To address the first issue, the courts noted that prostitutes, who are also human beings, have the right to live their lives in dignity. The courts have provided an explanation of Article 21 of the Constitution that includes living a dignified life and not just surviving by the bare minimum. They also noted that an Indian woman is in many cases forced and coerced into the sex trade and prostitution for reasons of extreme poverty or when they are found to be easy victims of traffickers. It is, therefore, for this reason, that sexual acts are performed against their will and certainly not for their pleasure of doing so.
Instead, the courts took Suo Motto action to resolve this issue nationwide. They provided the opportunity to receive technical training and vocational training for victims to earn a living by acquiring new skills instead of continuing in this line of work.
Having said that, the court also noted that sending them back to the community is not a matter to be solved in a day and will happen after a long period of time and to make sure of this, a panel was made by bringing together different people to help them achieve this goal. With regard to the second issue, the courts have ruled that part of the Indian Law Institute under the Central Government will be given to the panel to operate independently on its own to perform the functions it was established for.
In a similar vein, the court instructed Central and State Governments and the Union Territories to come up with plans and policies for helping in job training and skills training with the help of the panel. In addition, the court sought assistance from various NGOs and States to conduct a study on how many sex workers are wanting rehabilitation and how they want to participate in rehabilitation. The court then ordered that they address three concerns:
preventing sexual trafficking,
rehabilitating sex workers who wish to stop being part of the trade
ensuring that a sex worker who wishes to continue trading does so in a dignified and safe manner.
Which is how the court dealt with the third issue and the most concerning issue as noted in the judgment.
Similar Cases
References
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Is Working In A Red-Light Area A Crime In India? " by clicking the button below.
Comments