In a significant ruling addressing the scope of India’s anti-trafficking laws, the Telangana High Court has held that a customer of a sex worker cannot be prosecuted for the offence of human trafficking under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court clarified that prosecution under Section 370A(2) IPC may be possible if the customer knowingly engages a trafficked person for sexual exploitation.
The judgment was delivered on June 9, 2026, by a Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao while deciding a batch of criminal petitions referred to the Bench for clarification of legal questions.
Background of the Case
The petitions before the Court involved individuals who were alleged to be customers of sex workers. Police had registered cases against them under provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, along with Sections 370 and 370A(2) IPC.
A Single Judge of the High Court had earlier noticed differing judicial opinions on whether customers of sex workers could be prosecuted under Section 370A(2) IPC and whether mere presence at a brothel was enough to attract criminal liability. The matter was therefore referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative ruling.
Court’s Observation on Section 370 IPC
Examining the trafficking provision, the Bench concluded that Section 370 IPC is aimed at punishing traffickers and the act of trafficking itself.
The Court observed that a customer who pays for sexual services “cannot be termed a trafficker.” It noted that merely visiting a brothel or premises where prostitution is carried on does not amount to trafficking.
According to the Bench, a transaction involving only a sex worker and a customer does not satisfy the legal ingredients of trafficking under Section 370 IPC.
Applicability of Section 370A(2)
The Court drew a distinction between Sections 370 and 370A IPC.
While Section 370 targets traffickers, Section 370A(2) penalizes a person who engages a trafficked individual for sexual exploitation, knowing or having reason to believe that the person has been trafficked.
The Bench explained that the law is intended to punish the “end user” who fuels the demand for trafficked persons.
“The existence of actual knowledge or reason to believe is a question that depends on the facts and circumstances of each case,” the Court observed.
At the same time, the judges emphasized that voluntary sex work is not prohibited under Sections 370 or 370A IPC and that voluntary sex workers and their clients should not be harassed through misuse of these provisions.
Mere Presence at a Brothel Not Sufficient
Addressing the third issue, the Court held that mere presence in the vicinity of a brothel or at premises where prostitution is carried on is not enough to prosecute a person under Section 370A(2) IPC.
The Bench stated that investigators must show material indicating that the person had engaged a trafficked individual and possessed the required knowledge or reason to believe that the person was trafficked. Specific acts of sexual exploitation need not be proved, but the essential elements of engagement and knowledge must exist.
Decision
Answering the reference, the Telangana High Court held that:
A customer of a sex worker cannot be prosecuted for trafficking under Section 370 IPC. A customer may be prosecuted under Section 370A(2) IPC only if the sex worker is a trafficked person and the customer knew or had reason to believe that fact. The Court further held that mere presence near a brothel or prostitution premises is insufficient by itself to attract liability under Section 370A(2) IPC.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mr. Konda Hemanth Kumar v. State of Telangana & Another (Batch Matters)
Case Number: Criminal Petition Nos. 4093, 4614, 4977, 5063 & batch matters; along with Crl. R.C. No. 935 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao
Decision Date: June 9, 2026
