"Shocked": Madras HC Rejects Advocate's Plea Seeking Protection For His Brothel Providing Sex Services

The petitioner stated that he was the founder of a trust named "Friends For Ever Trust," which aimed to promote adult recreation and related activities, including offering oil bath and sex-related services to members and customers. He alleged that local police raids had obstructed his trust's activities, contending that the Tamil Nadu Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act did not categorize sex work as illegal. He cited a Supreme Court judgment in support of his argument that sex workers deserve dignity.

A bench of Justice B Pugalendhi not only dismissed the petition but also imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on the petitioner. Additionally, the Court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to verify the authenticity of the petitioner’s enrollment with the Bar Council and his educational qualifications. The Court directed, “(i) the Bar Council shall ascertain the genuineness of the petitioner's enrollment and educational certificates and proceed further based on the genuineness, in accordance with law ; (ii) the respondent police shall also find out the genuineness of the petitioner's educational certificates and to report the same to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu;”

Raja Murrugan represented himself, while Additional Public Prosecutor E Antony Sahaya Prabhakar appeared for the Respondent.

The single-judge remarked that it was imperative for the Bar Council to take cognizance of the declining reputation of lawyers in society. The Court emphasized the need for the Bar Council to enroll members only from reputable educational institutions.

The High Court said, “This Court is shocked that an advocate in robes claiming that he is running a brothel centre and filed this writ petition seeking some protection for running this brothel centre. Therefore, this Court has directed the petitioner to produce his enrollment certificate and law degree certificates in order to ascertain, whether he is actually advocate, studied law degree and has enrolled in any Bar Association and has passed over the cases.”

The High Court clarified that both the TN Act and the Supreme Court judgment had been misinterpreted by the petitioner. The Court added, “The Tamil Nadu government in order to prevent the exploitation of women and trafficking of women, has enacted an Act, viz., the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956. This Act has been enacted with an aim 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. No doubt adults can have sex, but soliciting people and luring them into sexual activities are illegal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment has stated that voluntary sex work is not illegal, but running brothel is unlawful”

The Court had previously directed the petitioner to produce his enrollment and law degree certificates to verify his credentials as an advocate. Despite this, the petitioner failed to comply with the directive. The Court said, “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 States.”

The High Court lamented the situation, especially that such activities were being associated with someone claiming to be an advocate in a district known for its high literacy rate.

Cause Title: Raja Murrugan v. The Superintendent of Police & Ors.