Delhi HC directs Police Commissioner to prevent prostitution under the guise of massage parlors

Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The petitioner contended that the operation of sex rackets and prostitution rings violates Section 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the right to life under Article 21, and the prohibition on trafficking under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court directed the Commissioner, of Delhi Police to ensure all steps are undertaken to prevent prostitution rings from being conducted under the garb of massage parlors.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Ateet Bansal, a permanent resident of Delhi. Bansal sought directions to the respondent authorities to initiate actions to abolish all sex rackets/illegal flesh trade. He also contended that all such complaints be treated in a time-bound manner. Furthermore, Bansal sought directions to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to file a status report on the total number of massage parlors operating in Delhi NCR in a time-bound manner.

The counsel for Bansal argued that the operation of sex rackets and prostitution rings violates Section 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the right to life under Article 21; and the prohibition on trafficking under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. He added that the business of sex racket operating under the garb of massage parlors "poses a serious threat to the safety and dignity of women".

The counsel further stated that the Police, as well as other authorities at various levels, have been adequately informed of the growing number of sex racket businesses, with ample supporting evidence. However, he alleged that these concerns, expressed through his complaints, have repeatedly fallen on deaf ears.

The court took note of a memo issued by the Delhi Police Headquarters, which directed and instructed all Deputy Commissioners of Police under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Police to keep a Vigil on massage parlors and to take appropriate legal action against them if they noticed any illegal activities taking place.

As per a report of the Delhi Police on the actions taken against various sex rackets operating in Delhi NCR from January 1, 2017, to September 30, 2019, the following was revealed:

  • 526 massage parlors exist in the city of Delhi as per the information received from the field formations, out of which 405 massage parlors were found functioning.
  • The remaining 121 massage parlors have either been closed by the owner himself or have been sealed by MCD/SDMC.
  • 19 complaints were received against massage parlors in which allegations of illegal flesh trade were leveled.
  • Out of these 19 complaints, on 08 complaints FIRs under the ITP Act have been registered against the owners of massage parlors. The allegations leveled in the remaining 11 complaints could not be substantiated during the inquiry.
  • 49 Kalandras u/s 28/112 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 have been filed against the owners of the massage parlors which were found operating without valid trade licenses.
  • 2 FIRs have been lodged against the owners of Massage Parlours for not getting the police verification of their workers done, despite directions.
  • 61 Massage Parlours, were found operating with expired/without licenses, and information regarding the same has been sent to concerned Civic Agencies to take appropriate legal action.

Taking note of the status report, the court said, “The status report discloses that necessary action has been taken by the Police, whenever they have been in receipt of information or complaints with respect to prostitution rackets operating under massage parlors.”

“Considering that the Delhi Police has been taking necessary actions, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition in light of the directions already issued by Respondent No. 1”, the court ordered. Accordingly, the court disposed of the PIL.

Case Title: Ateet Bansal v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr.