2025 Reading Challenge discussion
ARCHIVE 2020
>
Anubhuti's Reading Tracker
date
newest »





I aim to read 25. I'm done with 3 ^^"
However, there's this one book that's a bit too tough for me to understand ( that I've been putting off for 2 years now)
So, I'm trying to track that book, chapter by chapter, using this thread.

but it's been massively useful so far!"
That's alright, as long as it works for you :)
Best of luck with your goal of 25 books!


Thank you for your kind comment, Dikshita. :) Do let me know if you want to know more about this book. (or any chapter in specific!)
And, yes. Your guess is accurate. I'm a lawyer.


Summary:-
This chapter deals with a very special case before the court, one that disrupts the older and oft accepted narrative- that prostitutes are trafficked and forced into the profession. They do not do so by their will.
The petition was by a young Husna Bai who declared herself to be a labouring, economically independent citizen who professed prostitution like any other service and by her OWN WILL.
The chapter also discusses the power of writ petitions- how the seniormost courts are obligated to hear the citizens- often penurious and uneducated- with minimal litigation costs and within a short period of time; a recourse which is seen with panic and disdain by the bureaucracy and the govt.


Oh! That's good to know! Pleasure to meet you, Dikshita!
I just try to read upon a bit of legal literature! ^^" Would love to exchange legal book recommendations with you. :)

Summary:-
This chapter delves into a) the legitimacy of prostitution as profession and whether it is covered under Article 19(g) or whether restricting it can be considered as reasonable restriction and
(b) the the arguments taken by Husna Bai specifically against SITA and it's coercive drafting.
(a) Dealing with first issue, the court held that prostitution was covered under Article 19(g). It was "at least trade" if not a profession. A complete restriction was not reasonable. Individual practising was allowed. However, open solicitation, public practising , trafficking etc. were not allowed as reasonable restriction.
(The highlight is the fact that only "civil" society sees prostitution as emancipation and oppression. To many prostitutes, the money earned is not just far more than what they can earn labouring in fields, but actually a ticket to a life of opportunities such as education and property. Money is a great equaliser for themselves and their families. Moreover, the shame and morality arguments cannot be extended to prostitutes who have been practising it hereditarily. )
(b) Husna Bai challenged two very, very coercive parts of the legislation. The first was the definition of brothel that criminalised two prostitutes sharing a space or a room for mutual benefit and called for eviction from the district by the DM. Thus, any two prostitutes even if living together were called to be running a brothel and could be thrown out of the district!
The second was that the legislation criminalised "any person" living on the earning of a prostitute AND it was a presumption based crime!
Thus, the law criminalised sick parents, kids and anyone who would be living on the earning of a prostitute. This was not just dracorian for the dependent family members but also enhanced social and familial alienation of prostitutes.
The All HC struck off both these provisions from SITA and called them unreasonable.
(started)