JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

1. These revisional applications have been referred to the Bench as they involve the important question of the vires of Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic In Women and Girls Act, 1956. In all these cases the Sub-Divisionai Magistrate, Sholapur Division, has directed that the petitioners who are alleged to be prostitutes should remove themselves front the town of Barsi and that they should go to Osmanabad Via Yedshi within three days from the date set by him.

2. Now, Section 20 of the Act enables the Magistrate to record the substance of the information received end issue a notice to the woman or girl residing In or frequenting any place within the local limits of his jurisdiction to show cause. Sub-section (3) says that if upon such inquiry it appears to the Magistrate that such woman or girl is a prostitute and that it is necessary in the interests of the general public that such woman or girl should be required to remove herself therefrom and be prohibited from re-entering the same, the Magistrate shall by order in writing direct her to remove herself from the place to such place whether within or without the local limits of his jurisdiction, by such route or routes and within such time as may be specified in the order and also prohibited her from re-entering the place without the permission in writing of the Magistrate having Jurisdiction over such place.

3. It is argued by Mr. Lalit that this section is Ultra Vires the powers of the Legislature and is hit by Article 14 as well as by Article 19(1) (d) and (e). He argued that the section gives arbitrary power to a Magistrate to remove any prostitute he chooses without laying down any guiding principles and therefore it is hit by Article 14. So far as Article 19(1) (d), (e) is concerned, he says that his clients have, as any other citizens have, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle In any part of India and since the section curtails that right, it is Ultra Vires. According to him, though Clause (5) of Article 19 enables reasonable restriction to be imposed, restrictions imposed by the provisions of Section 20 are not reasonable for the reason that the remedy intended to be provided by the powers given to the Magistrate is not commensurate with the evil that was intended to be met by the Act.

4. There cannot be any scope for dispute that "prostitution and traffic in human beings for the purpose are Incompatible with human dignity and worth of human person." It also cannot be disputed that it adversely affects the society both morally and physically. Even a. most tolerant person would not like his or her family and children to come in contact with a prostitute. From time to time International agreements are made for suppression of the traffic in one form or another. The first was as early as on 18th May 1904, second was of 4th May 1910, third of 30-9-1931, fourth of 11-10-1933 and the last in 1950, a convention for the suppression of the traffic in women and girls and of the exploitation of the prostitution of others. This convention was signed by several nations including ours.

5. While dealing with the argument about reasonableness or otherwise, one must remember that women do not choose this vocation because they like it. It has been recognised that in a largo measure they are forced in this vocation by social conditions and most often against their will. One may not therefore, judge those cases with any amount of harshness.

6. We will take the first objection first it is argued that there is nothing to guide the Magistrate to decide which of the several prostitutes operating in an area to remove. Reliance is placed for this argument on State of West Bengal v. Anwar AM, AIR 1952 SC 75, where Section 5 of West Bengal Special Courts Act was held to be Invalid on the ground that it vested an unrestricted discretion in the State Government to direct any case or classes of cases to be tried by the S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document