Madras High Court shocked after advocate moves Court seeking protection to run brothel

The Madras High Court recently expressed its “shock” after coming to know that a petitioner who claimed to be a practicing advocate had filed a petition seeking protection to run a brothel in Nagercoil in Kanyakumari district..Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court not only dismissed the petition with costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner but also directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to ascertain the “genuineness” of the petitioner’s enrolment with the Bar Council and education certificates.In an order passed on July 5, the single-judge also said that it was high time that the Bar Council took note of the decline in reputation of lawyers in the society and said that the Bar body must enroll only members from reputed colleges..“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,” the High Court said..The petitioner, one Raja Murrugan, approached the High Court claiming that he was the “founder of the trust namely Friends For Ever Trust,” whose main objective was “to promote adult recreation and other related activities” including “oil bath and sex related services to its members and its customers.”Murrugan claimed that the local police had conducted a raid at his ‘Trust’ and was obstructing him from carrying out its activities. Murrugan also argued that the Tamil Nadu Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act did not declare sex work as illegal. He had also cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in Budhadev Karmaskar vs The State of West Bengal, where the apex court had said that sex workers must be treated with dignity..The High Court, however, said that the petitioner had misread the TN Act and the Supreme court judgement. These laws are meant to protect and rehabilitate sex workers but the State Act and the Supreme Court had never said that running a brothel was legal.“The Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 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 High Court said..In one of the earlier order, the Court had also directed the petitioner to produce his enrolment certificate and law degree certificates in order to ascertain whether he was actually an advocate but the petitioner failed to produce the documents..“What is very unfortunate in this case is that the person who is doing all these businesses claims to be an Advocate. Kanyakumari District is known for its 100% literacy in the district. From this district and that too in the name of advocate such activities are done. A few days back in another case it was reported that an advocate has been arrested for dacoity. 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 Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and other States,” the High Court said while asking the Bar Council to ascertain whether the petitioner is a genuine lawyer or not. .The petitioner, Raja Murrugan, appeared as a party in person.Additional Public Prosecutor E Antony Sahaya Prabhakar appeared for the State police..[Read Order]