THE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CHALLENGES GOVERNING PROSTITUTION AS A RIGHT OF LIVELIHOOD IN INDIA
AUTHOR – RISHEL ALMEIDA B.COM., LL.B., ST.JOSEPH’S COLLEGE OF LAW
BEST CITATION – RISHEL ALMEIDA, THE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CHALLENGES GOVERNING PROSTITUTION AS A RIGHT OF LIVELIHOOD IN INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (10) OF 2026, PG. 53-61, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I108
ABSTRACT
In this paper, prostitution is especially examined from the perspective of property law. The question of whether and to what extent the legal system should acknowledge or control the commercial exchange of sexual services arises from property theory, constitutional law, and comparative law. The primary query is whether you have the right to sell the use of your body if you own it. And if you do, is it constitutionally permissible for the State to intervene and limit that right?
The subject body is how you exercise all of your rights, not just what you have rights over. Prostitution directly raises fundamental property law questions that legal scholars have mostly overlooked. Prostitution is the exchange of sexual access for money. Is it possible to own your body in the same manner that you own stuff outside your body? Does the right to sell, which ownership entails, extend to commercial sex? If so, what restrictions should the law impose to stop coercion, exploitation, and loss of dignity?
India’s Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956[1], stands in uncertainty. It criminalises everything related to sex work, but it does not outlaw it. Sex workers are essentially kept in a legal limbo by the law. It sees sex workers’ bodies as a topic of social concern rather than personal power, blurs the distinction between consent and compulsion, and denies them the safeguards provided in similar occupations. The study finishes with specific recommendations for law and policy that are in line with both constitutional principles and the realities of those impacted, after examining how Sweden, New Zealand, and the Netherlands handle this and drawing on Indian and international court judgments.
Keywords: Prostitution, sex work, body as property, self-ownership, bodily autonomy, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, Article 21, Article 19(1)(g), decisional autonomy, K.S. Puttaswamy, Budhadev Karmaskar, consent, coercion, trafficking, decriminalisation, comparative sex work law, Swedish model, New Zealand Prostitution Reform Act, Dutch model, labour rights,
[1] Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, [hereinafter ITPA].penalized,