Page 1

Crl.A.135/10 1

REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO(s).     135     OF     2010   

        BUDHADEV KARMASKAR                         Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

        STATE OF WEST BENGAL                       Respondent(s)

O     R     D     E     R   

 1. CRLMP.NO.12415 of 2012, has been filed on  

behalf of the Union of India, for modification of  

the order passed by this Court on 19th July, 2011,  

referring certain issues to the Committee which had  

been constituted by the said order itself.

2. The first modification sought by the Union of  

India is for deletion of the Durbar Mahila  

Samanwaya Samiti, from the panel.   The second  

modification sought is with regard to the third  

term of reference, which reads as follows:-

“(3) Conditions conducive for  sex workers who wish to continue  working as sex workers with  dignity.”

3. Appearing in support of the application, the  

learned ASG, Mr. P.P. Malhotra, submitted that the  

Samiti in question had been actively advocating the  

revocation of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act,

Page 2

Crl.A.135/10 2

1956, and had also been advocating the recognition  

of sex trade being continued by sex workers.   The  

learned ASG submitted that the continuance of such  

Samiti in the panel is giving a wrong impression to  

the public that the Union of India was also  

inclined to think on similar lines.    The learned  

ASG submitted that this wrong impression should be  

removed  by excluding the Samiti from the panel.

4. As far as the second issue is concerned, the  

learned ASG submitted that wording of such  

reference could be suitably modified so as not to  

give an impression that the Union of India was in  

favour of encouraging the sex workers, in  

contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid  

Act.

5. We have heard Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior  

advocate and Chairman of the Committee, as also  

learned senior advocate, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, who is  

also a member of the Committee and its co-Chairman  

and Mr. Grover, learned senior advocate, on the  

issue.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. Ghosh that at the  

meetings of the Committee, the members of the  

Samiti had contributed a great deal towards the  

understanding of  the problems of the sex workers  

and it was not as if the said Samiti was

Page 3

Crl.A.135/10 3

encouraging sex trade, but were providing valuable  

inputs into the problems  being faced by   people  

engaged in the trade.   Mr. Ghosh,  Mr. Grover, and  

Mr. Bhushan, in one voice urged that the presence  

of the Samiti in the Committee was necessary even  

to function as a sounding board in respect of the  

problems that are faced by this marginalised and  

unfortunate section of society.

7. We agree with the submissions made by Mr.  

Ghosh, Mr. Grover and Mr. Bhushan, learned senior  

counsel, and are not, therefore, inclined to delete  

the Samiti from the Committee, as prayed for by the  

Union of India, and such prayer is rejected.

8. As to the second issue, it will not in any way  

make any difference to the terms of reference, if  

the wording of the third term of reference, is  

modified to the following effect:-

“Conditions conducive for sex  workers   to live  with  dignity in accordance with  the provisions of Article 21  of the Constitution.”

9. The above modification, should not, however, be  

construed to mean that by this order, any attempt  

is being made to encourage prostitution in any way.  

10. CRLMP.NO.12415 of 2012, is, therefore, disposed  

of in term of the aforesaid order.

11. Let this matter now be listed for

Page 4

Crl.A.135/10 4

consideration of the Sixth and Seventh Interim  

Reports, filed by the Committee, on 22nd  August,  

2012, at 3.00 p.m.   

12. Let this Bench be reconstituted on the said  

date and time for the aforesaid purpose.

...................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

         NEW DELHI;           JULY 26, 2012.

Page 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     135     OF     2010   

BUDHADEV KARMASKAR                  .. Appellant

Versus

STATE OF WEST BENGAL                              ...Respondent

ORDER      

1. While concurring with the views of my learned brother Justice  

Altamas Kabir, I prefer to add in regard to the second issue that this  

Court should not be misunderstood to encourage the practice of flesh  

trade or advocate the recognition of sex trade merely because it has  

raised the issue to emphasize the rehabilitation aspect of the sex  

workers, for which this Court had taken  the initiative right at the  

threshold. I consider this essential in order to allay any apprehension  

which prompted the Union of India to move this application for  

modification, by highlighting that the sex workers although have a right  

to live with dignity as the society is aware that they are forced to  

continue with this trade under compulsions since they have no  

alternative source of livelihood, collective endeavour should be there on  

the part of the Court and all concerned who have joined this cause as  

also the sex workers themselves to give up this heinous profession of

Page 6

flesh trade by providing the destitute and physically abused women an  

alternative forum for employment and resettlement in order to be able to  

rehabilitate themselves. I, therefore, wish to reiterate by way of  

abundant caution that this Court should not be perceived to advocate  

the recognition of sex trade or promote the cause of prostitution in any  

form and manner even when it had stated earlier in its terms of  

reference ‘regarding conditions conducive for sex workers who wish to  

continue working as sex workers with dignity’.   

2. Thus, when we modify the earlier term of reference and state  

regarding conditions conducive for sex workers to live with dignity in  

accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, the  

same may not be interpreted or construed so as to create an impression  

or draw inference that this Court in any way is encouraging the sex  

workers to continue with their profession of flesh trade by providing  

facilities to them when it is merely making an effort to advocate the  

cause of offering an alternative source of employment to those sex  

workers who are keen for rehabilitation. When we say ‘conditions  

conducive for  sex workers to live with dignity’, we unambiguously wish  

to convey that while the sex workers may be provided alternative source  

of employment for their rehabilitation to live life with dignity, it will have  

to be understood in the right perspective as we cannot direct the Union  

of India or the State Authorities to provide facilities to those sex workers  

who wish to promote their profession of sex trade for earning their  

livelihood, except of course the basic amenities for a dignified life, as  

6

Page 7

this was certainly not the intention of this Court even when the term of  

reference was framed earlier.  

3. We, therefore, wish to be understood that we confine ourselves  

to the efforts for rehabilitation of sex workers which should not be  

construed as facilitating, providing them assistance or creating  

conducive conditions to carry on flesh trade for expanding their business  

in any manner as it cannot be denied that the profession of sex trade is  

a slur on the dignity of women. Conditions conducive for sex workers to  

live with dignity in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the  

Constitution be therefore understood in its correct perspective as  

indicated above.  

…………………………………….J (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)  

New Delhi, July 26, 2012

7