Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court was recently shocked by a petition from a person claiming himself to be an Advocate registered with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry seeking direction to prevent police intervention in activities of his trust, which was essentially a brothel.

Raja Murrugan, the petitioner, submitted that his trust functions 24 hours in Nagercoil providing services of volunteer sex between adults including services by sex workers, counselling and oil baths etc. 

An FIR was registered at Nesamani Nagar Police Station, Nagercoil, against Murrugan under various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, IPC, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was arrested in February but later released on bail. Through his another petition, Murrugan sought direction to quash the said FIR as well.

He also sought permission to open other branches in Tamil Nadu and sought Rs 5 lakh in compensation for police interference that halted his business for five months.

His contention was that the police's action on him was against the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar Vs The State of West Bengal (2010) where the top court held that voluntary sex work is not illegal.

The bench of Justice B Pugalendhi said that Murrugan misunderstood the context in which the Supreme Court's judgment had been rendered. Court clarified that the Supreme Court had allowed only voluntary sex work but it had held that running brothel is unlawful.

"Supreme Court has taken the issue for the purpose of prevention of trafficking and rehabilitation of sex workers, who wish to leave sex work and the conditions conducive for sex workers, who wish to continue sex working as sex workers with dignity...No doubt adults can have sex, but soliciting people and luring them into sexual activities are illegal," court said. 

Court emphasised that the Tamil Nadu government in order to prevent the exploitation of women and trafficking of women, has enacted the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 which aims to prevent the commercialisation of vices and the trafficking of females.

This Act does not declare sex work as illegal. However it prohibits running of brothel centres, court stressed. 

Court said that it was shocking that an advocate in robes not only claimed that he is running a brothel centre but also sought protection for running it.

Court highlighted that despite ample opportunity Murrugan failed to produce his enrollment certificate and law degree certificates. 

Therefore, court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to ascertain the genuineness of Murrugan's certificates and proceed further based on the genuineness, in accordance with the law 

Court directed the police as well to find out the genuineness of Murrugan's educational certificates and to report the same to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.

Court dismissed the Murrugan's petition with cost of Rs.10,000 to be credited to the District Social Welfare Officer, Kanyakumari District.

Moreover, court asked the trial court to conclude the case against Murrugan within 5 months. 

"It is high time the Bar Council has to realise that the reputation of the Advocates in the society is getting decreased. At least hereafter the Bar Council shall ensure that members are enrolled only from reputed institutions and restrict the enrollment from unreputed institutions from Andhrapradesh, Karnataka and other State," court asserted. 

Case Title: Murrugan v. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari