As many sections of the society, the pandemic has hit hard the adults who earn by providing sexual services.
It is time to consider the demand of granting basic labour rights to sex workers.
Why do sex workers face double burden?
Sex work is not recognised as “legitimate work.”
They do not become eligible to benefit from the government’s relief programmes.
Sex workers in India have been asking for decriminalisation of sex work and a guaranteed set of labour rights.
COVID-19's impact has provided yet another reason to consider this long-pending demand.
What are the current legal provisions?
The Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Children Act was enacted in 1956.
Subsequent amendments were made to the law.
And the name of the Act was changed to Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
This is the legislation currently governing sex work in India.
The legislation penalises acts such as
keeping a brothel
soliciting in a public place
living off the earnings of sex work
living with or habitually being in the company of a sex worker
What are the concerns?
Legal - The Act represents the archaic and regressive view that sex work is morally wrong.
It perceives that the people involved in it, especially women, never consent to it voluntarily.
As a consequence, it is believed that these women need to be “rescued” and “rehabilitated.”
This is a valid argument for minor girls, but not for many consenting adult sex workers.
Social - The Act's precept has led to the classification of ‘‘respectable women” and “non-respectable women.”
It thus perpetuates the prejudice of viewing sex workers as morally devious.
The Act, besides criminalising, has further stigmatised sex work.
It thus leaves sex workers more prone to violence, discrimination and harassment.
Rights - The Act denies an individual their right over their bodies.
It imposes the will of the state over adults articulating their life choices.
It gives no agency to the sex workers to fight against the traffickers.
In fact, the Act has made them more susceptible to be harassed by the state officials.
Evidence shows that many women choose to remain in sex work despite opportunities to leave after ‘rehabilitation’ by the government or NGOs.
The Act fails to recognise this choice.
There is a distinction between women who are trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation and adult, consenting women who are in sex work of their own volition.
The Justice Verma Commission had also acknowledged this distinction.
What is the way forward?
The Supreme Court, in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2011), opined that sex workers have a right to dignity.
Parliament must also take a re-look at the existing legislation and do away with the ‘victim-rescue-rehabilitation’ narrative.
The country must thus rethink sex work from a labour perspective and guarantee basic labour rights to sex workers.
