Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 64

6.11. Amendments needed in sections 15(4), 16, 17 and 23(2).-

Implementation of the scheme proposed above will necessitate amendments in sections 15(4) and 16 and consequential amendments in sections 17 and 23(2). We shall indicate at the appropriate place,1 the precise amendments to be made in sections 15(4), 16 and 17. The amendment of section 13(2) is a minor matter which could be taken care of by the draftsman without further guidance from us.2

It has been held in a Bombay case3 that the distinction between young "girls" (aged below 21) and women (above 21) which is made in sections 15(4) and 16(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 is a reasonable distinction in the context of prostitution and immoral traffic in sex. The discrimination between them is fully justified by the fact that girls below 21 are likely to be exploited to a greater extent in the market of prostitution. The distinction is therefore germane to the vice which is attempted to be suppressed by the provisions of the Act and cannot be attacked as unreasonable or as prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution. This case does not, of course, necessitate an amendment of the section.

1. See amendments recommended in sections 15(4), 16 and 17, para. 6.25, infra.

2. Section 23(2) to be amended by the draftsman.

3. Sayed Andul Khair v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 70 Born LR 390 (Vaidya, J.).

Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys