MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court expressed shock over an advocate allegedly running a brothel in Nagercoil, and dismissed his petition seeking to quash the FIR filed against him.
Outraged by the temerity of the petitioner, who claimed to be a practising advocate, in defending his action on the basis of the rights of adults to have consensual sex, Justice B Pugalendhi asked the Bar Council to ensure that only graduates from “reputable” law colleges get enrolled as advocates. The Bar Council must restrict the enrollment of graduates from dubious institutions in other states, the judge said.
In February this year, the Nesamani Nagar police in Nagercoil registered a case under various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Pocso Act against Raja Murugan who ran a brothel named Friends For Ever Trust in Nagercoil. Raja, who claimed to be a practising advocate of the Madurai Bench, filed two petitions in the court: one seeking to quash the FIR, and another that sought action against police personnel who allegedly assaulted him during arrest. He further stated that the case against him is a foisted one as consensual sex is not illegal.
During hearing, the police submitted that they had rescued a minor girl from the brothel, who mentioned in her statement that she was sexually abused.
Advocates are social engineers of change: Judge
Expressing shock over the fact an advocate was running a brothel, Justice B Pugalendhi said the legal profession is regarded a noble one, and lawyers are social engineers who bring about change and development. “In this case, a minor girl has been exploited by the petitioner, who has taken advantage of her poverty. The Bar Council and police should ascertain the genuineness of the petitioner’s certificates.”
The court dismissed the plea to quash the FIRir, noting the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956, does not declare sex work illegal, but it prohibits the operation of brothels, and said the petitioner had advertised his brothel. Stating that the final report has been filed on the FIR , it dismissed the petition and said the petitioner has the liberty to challenge the final report in a trial court.
The court said it is not inclined to grant any mandamus sought in the second petition, imposing a cost of `10,000 on the petitioner, to be paid to district social welfare officer of Kanniyakumari.
