Kochi, Sep 9 : The Kerala High Court has ruled that individuals availing sexual services in brothels can be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act), holding that payment for such services amounts to inducing prostitution.

Justice VG Arun observed that sex workers cannot be reduced to commodities and that those seeking their services are not mere "customers" but active participants in exploitation.

"A person utilising the service of a sex worker at a brothel cannot be termed a customer. Payment made is only an inducement compelling the sex worker to act against their will, often under trafficking and coercion," the Court said.

The ruling came in a case arising from a 2021 police raid at Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram.

During the raid, officers found the petitioner with a woman in one room and another man with a woman in another.

Investigations revealed that two persons were managing the brothel, procuring women for prostitution and collecting payments.

While the brothel operators were charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act (running a brothel and living off earnings of prostitution), the petitioner also faced charges under Section 5(1)(d) (inducing a person into prostitution) and Section 7 (prostitution in or near public places).

Challenging the case, the petitioner argued that he was merely a customer and that his conduct did not amount to running or managing prostitution activities.

He relied on earlier rulings to claim that availing services did not amount to inducement.

The prosecution, however, countered that the question of liability should be determined by evidence before the trial court.

After hearing both sides, the Court clarified that while Sections 3 and 4 apply to brothel operators, availing sexual services at a brothel amounts to inducement under Section 5(1)(d).

"If such a person is described as a customer, it defeats the very object of the Act, which is to prevent human trafficking and protect those compelled into prostitution," the court noted.

Accordingly, proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 were quashed.

However, the court upheld his prosecution under Sections 5(1)(d) and 7 of the ITP Act.

/IANS