The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently urged the authorities to establish comprehensive guidelines for the regulation of spas and massage centers in order to combat the increasing instances falling under the purview of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in Chandigarh.
A single-judge Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu passed the directive after identifying a legal void in this domain, as there exist no extant rules, regulations, or guidelines governing the operations of such establishments. The bench further underscored that a total of 71 spa centers are currently operational within the confines of the Union Territory (UT) of Chandigarh. Over the period since 2018, a cumulative total of 16 cases have been filed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, with five instances occurring within the year 2023.
“The escalating number of cases under the Act in UT Chandigarh prompts a consideration towards the formulation of analogous guidelines for this aesthetically pleasing city, in a bid to quell this menace,” the bench stated.
The bench made the observation during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea of one Nagaraj, who stands accused of running a venture masquerading as a spa under the moniker ‘Ganga spa’.
Nagaraj, along with other co-accused, faces charges under diverse sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, as well as Section 370 (pertaining to trafficking for sexual exploitation) and Section 120B (relating to criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The initiation of the First Information Report (FIR) stemmed from a police raid wherein individuals were discovered in a state of indecent exposure within the confines of the spa. Allegations surfaced that the rescued individuals, primarily young women, revealed that they had been transported from Jalandhar by the petitioner-accused under the guise of offering body massage, only to be subsequently coerced into engaging in prostitution.
The petitioner’s legal representative contended that the search was conducted unlawfully, given the absence of any upstanding local residents during the operation. The Court, however, dismissed this contention, stating, “Such argument lacks merit, given that the women’s helpline team was actively involved during the search. Thus, the stipulations of Section 15 of the Act were amply complied with by the Special Police Officer.”
In light of the serious nature of the allegations against him, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that his custodial interrogation would be imperative to ascertain the true details and modus operandi underlying these activities.
