The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ateet Bansal vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad directed Delhi Police to ensure that all steps are undertaken to prevent prostitution rings from being conducted under the garb of massage parlours.
Facts
This writ petition under Article 226 was filed as a PIL by a permanent resident of New Delhi to pass a writ of mandamus or a writ of similar nature to immediately initiate actions to abolish all sex rackets/illegal flesh trade from the roots of our society; to take immediate action to conduct an enquiry into the complaint filed by the Petitioner; to take necessary steps against senior officials for filing a false report and for not taking actions on complaints of the Petitioner to screen off the offenders; and to file a status report qua the total number of massage parlours operating in Delhi and NCR in a time-bound manner
The petitioner found massage parlour ads in newspapers and business listings on Just Dial. He called an unknown person claiming to run massage parlours, who offered him to pay Rs. 12,000/- to meet parlour females at 6, Anupam Enclave Phase-I, IGNOU Road, Saket. The petitioner was allegedly beaten upon arrival. Before being caught, the offenders fled. He called the Police Control Room, Neb Sarai, and Hauz Khas police stations between 9:50 PM and 10:20 PM to report his physical attack and provide information on sex racket enterprises operating at the scene, but to no avail. Despite the Petitioner's attempts to tell the Police about alleged sex racket enterprises in Delhi NCR, no action was taken. He stated that he had previously tried to contact police about sex rackets operating as massage parlors.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an RTI application with the DCP-cum-Public Information Officer, requesting information on the progress of his calls to the Police Control Room (PCR) the night of the event. In response to his RTI application, he was told that his complaint had been received and that the application was being sent to the Additional DCP-cum-PIO for a reply under the RTI Act, 2005. Additional DCP, South District denied that the petitioner's mobile number called Neb Sarai or Saket Police Stations. Mehrauli sent a petitioner an Action Report. Respondent No. 1 asked the ACP to investigate the Petitioner's allegation.
The Action Report denied a sex racket at Mehrauli PS, closing the case. In a letter to Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner complained about the Police's lack of action on his allegations. Respondent 2/Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor sent his case to Respondent 1. He then filed another RTI request for a police action report. The PIO-cum-Additional DCP, South District, responded to this RTI application by alerting him that the complaint was pending investigation in the Operation Cell.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that the operations of sex rackets and prostitution rings were in direct violation of Section 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and transgresses upon the right to life under Articles 21 and against prohibition of trafficking under Article 23. It was also contended that the sex racket businesses operating under the garb of massage parlours pose a serious threat to the safety and dignity of women.
Respondent: It was contended that Police had been regularly investigating into and taking appropriate legal actions against the rackets. It was also contended that enquiries in complaints had already been conducted on the receipt of information in prior instances.
Observations by the Court
The Bench noted that it had ordered the Respondents to file Counter Affidavits in this petition. Respondent No. 1 submitted an affidavit with information on actions taken against Delhi NCR sex rackets from 01.01.2017 to 30.09.2019. The information included the number of massage parlors in certain regions of the city and the steps taken by civic agencies and the police in response to complaints about sex rackets.
Attached was a memo from Delhi Police Headquarters instructing all Deputy Commissioners of Police under Delhi Police's authority to keep a surveillance on massage parlours and take legal action against them if they observe illegal activity.
Judgment
The Bench opined that the Delhi Police was taking appropriate steps and dismissed the petition.
Case: Ateet Bansal vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) 8485/2018 & CM APPL. 8178/2020
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decided on: 23rd November 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
