To protest against the proposed bill and the lack of consultation in formulating the changes, over 5,000 sex workers along with representatives from civil society held a rally on 8th March, 2006 from Ramlila Maidan to Jantar-Mantar in Delhi. They met Prime Minister and other Ministers and submitted memorandum of appeal. Soon after its introduction in Parliament in May 2006, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2006 was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development for examination. Under the chairmanship of Janardan Dwivedi, a 35 member committee submitted their recommendation on 23rd November, 2006. These are as follows:

Proposed 5C should not be applicable to all customers, but only to those who exploit trafficked victims.
Section 3 (1) enhancing penalties for brothel related offences should be there.
If a sex worker willingly looks after someone, it should not be considered a crime. Section 4 should, accordingly be amended.
Government should provide alternative livelihood for sex workers who want to leave the profession.
Proposal to lower rank of police in Section 13 (2) must be dropped.
They suggest the drafting authority to think twice so that sex workers should not be identified as criminals.

The WCD has now suggested additional changes to the ITPA, which we sex workers oppose.
In Sec. 2(j), if a customer bargains with sex workers for sexual services, he would be arrested and imprisoned for exploiting the sex workers. Then what should a sex worker do – provide sexual service without money? All the laboring people toil for money, then is not everybody being exploited?
In the new amendment inserts the term commercial sexual exploitation. Proposed reason is while they are engaged in sexual service it causes them pain. But we the sex workers do not support this view. Our experiences do not substantiate the proposed view of the WCD. It is a work what requires one’s involvement, both at physical as well as at mental level, like many other works. There are elements of pleasure and boredom in sex work. In the process we serve sexual pleasure to the customers. So there is no reason to see our work causing pain only.
In Sec. 2(k), if a customer bargains or have sex with a trafficked girl, the customer should be considered as trafficker. But how can a customer recognize who is trafficked and who is not?
According to the amendment of Sec. 4 by the Standing Committee, if a sex worker willingly looks after someone then it should not be considered as offence. But the authority did not accept it. So the Sec. 4 is there and the children and the parents of the sex workers could be arrested.
In Sec. 5A, if a poor woman joins the profession for her poverty she would be considered as trafficked victim. Everybody works out of necessity; it’s money that drives people to work..
In Sec. 5C customers of sex workers were considered as exploiters of trafficked girls. The Bill considers every sex worker as a trafficked victim, irrespective of her willingness to engage in sex work. Therefore, in effect, all clients will be punished; contrary to what the Standing Committee had recommended.
The authority proposes is that if a customer gives her money or any gift after having sex with her it would be considered as sexual exploitation and he would be punished. Then should we extend sexual service without money?

Studies show that aggressive condom promotion among female sex workers, notably in Tamil Nadu, has resulted in reduction of HIV infection among the sex workers. These encouraging results highlight the need to expand and intensify programme that create an enabling environment for the sex workers to negotiate for condoms for safe sex practices. At the same time, it is felt that there has been inadequate focus on male clients of sex workers. Over the last two decades it is observed in the sex workers community, that effective prevention requires addressing structural barriers also like legal reforms that influence risk and impede behavior change among sex workers and their clients for safe sex practices for HIV prevention. Emulating the successful self-help group model, like in any other sector for empowering women, sex workers can be collectivized into community based organizations to manage their own health including HIV.
We apprehend that the proposed changes to the ITPA Bill, particularly the new sections on prostitution and commercial sexual exploitation (Section 2(f), 2(j), 3(1), 5A and 5C) which seek to penalize clients but in effect criminalize consensual adult sex work, will drive sex workers underground. This will not only undermine interventions to prevent HIV among sex workers and general population but also obstruct attempts to organize and empower sex worker.
We sincerely hope that you will pay heed attention to our concerns and oppose the Bill in its present form
Thank you,
With regards,
Ms. Bharati Dey
Program Director
www.durbar.org