Escort Services- Legal Aspects

Escort means attendant/helper/guide These services should not be confused with:

  1. Aya
  2. Nurse
  3. Female Security Guard
  4. Maidservant
  5. Brothel

Escort service is actually covered prostitution. In the nineties, it was called ” Call girl service”. Male and female both candidates are available for services.  The service is for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with clients or customers. It is not a valid profession and not protected by law, rather it is recognised as covered ‘prostitution’. Prostitution can be divided in public prostitution(legal in many countries) and private prostitution. It is someway one- to-one private service in exchange of money without having a permanent place of trade.

Calling somebody as ‘Sex worker’ doesn’t transform the nature of service i.e prostitution.

Prostitution means the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind, and whether offered immediately or otherwise, and the expression ‘prostitute’ shall be construed accordingly. The word ‘promiscuous’,. it excludes intercourse which a person may have with a permanently kept concubine. The import of that word is that the woman or girl offering her body offers it for hire to anyone who desired it for sexual intercourse.

Morals and law are not synonymous. As soon as law enters the sphere of morals, its construction and implementation both seem to be fraught with difficulties. One such law is this legislation relating to the suppression of prostitution. Whatever be its origins and reason for its survival, be they biological, economic, social or psychological, prostitution is a practice as old as civilization. At one time courtesans carved for themselves an accepted niche in society nearing respectability. Still, later it came to be protected, licensed and regulated by law. In spite of puritan fervor it is difficult to totally eradicate this ancient practice unless the society guarantees to supply suitable employment and more rigorous its suppression is, more defiantly docs it emerge overtly and covertly in other sophisticated forms. In general, there is universal agreement that the practice of non-marital sex as a profession is degrading to the dignity of mankind, of women in particular. In pursuance of ratification by India of the International Convention of the suppression of traffic in persons and of the exploitation of the prostitution by others, signed in New York in 1950 on May 9, the Act was enacted.

Rate and Category of Female Escorts in Kolkata 

College Girls: LLB/MBA/MSc/Engineer 

InCall – Out-Call
1 Hours :
INR 4000-10,000
3 Hours :
INR 10,000-20,000
Full Night :
INR 10,000-30,000

Housewives: Single Unit/Joint Family 
InCall – Out-Call
1 Hours :
INR 4000-10,000
3 Hours :
INR 10,000-20,000
Full Night :
INR 10,000-30,000

High Profile
Ramp Models
Air Hostess
VIP Models
Struggling Actresses/TV Actress/Bengali Cine Actress
Russian Girls

Place of service :

  1. House of the Customer
  2. Massage parlor
  3. Luxury Car
  4. Hotels [on confirmation of Booking]
  5. Our Station Resort

Connected laws :

1- Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 

The Act seeks to do is not to stop the profession or trade of a prostitute altogether : Smt. Shama Bai and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Others, , and imposes reasonable restrictions on it. Municipal Committee, Malerkotla Vs. Mohd. Mushtaq, . What it seeks to prohibit is the act of a common prostitute and, Therefore, a single act of offer cannot amount to an offer for purposes of promiscuous intercourse. Promiscuity in prostitution means indiscriminate bartering of sex favors without any emotional attachment and for monetary considerations. In Re: Ratnamala and Another, , and Bai Shanta Vs. State of Gujarat, , it was pointed out that the purpose of the Act is not to render prostitution per se a criminal offence, but it is to inhibit or abolish commercialized vice as an organized means of living. So In re Kamala, Air 1966 Madras 312, it was held that merely to indulge in some flirtation with a stranger, or to behave in such a way as to attract the attention of persons of the opposite sex, may be regrettable or immodest, but per se, it does not amount to any offence under the Act. It excludes a permanently kept concubine or a women taken without paying any consideration. The entire scheme behind the Act is not the proof of a single incident of prostitution or of the activities of a prostitute. There must be indiscriminate sexuality requiring more than one customer : In Re: Devakumar and Others, , and Bai Shanta (supra). In Re: Dhanalakshmi, , it was observed that the phrase ‘for purposes of prostitution’ postulates plurality of instances of prostitution. A single instance would not suffice for the purpose of prostitution. But plural and indiscriminate sexuality can be inferred from the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and it is not necessary that the evidence of more than one customer of the prostitute should be adduced, vide T. Jacob Vs. State of Kerala, , and Kriahnamurthy @ Tailor Krishnan v. Public Prosecutor, Madras 1967 Cri. L.J. 544, and Deva kumar (supra). Promiscuity lies in an intentional indifference in the selection of parties as long as they pay. The relationship is usually marked by brevity and inside contempt for each other. Mere offer for such promiscuous sex, in or near a public place will be an offence u/s 8 of the Act. If the facts alleged could be proved, then certainly the act complained of was an act for purposes of prostitution in this case.

What is punishable under the Act is sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes and to earn the bread thereby except where a person is carrying on prostitution in the vicinity of a public place (vide Section 7) or when a person is found soliciting or seducing another person (vide Section 8).

Supreme Court in Krishnamurthy alias Tailor Krishnan  Versus  Public Prosecutor, Madras [AIR 1967 SC 567 : (1967) 1 SCR 586 : (1967) CriLJ SC 544]

The main question appeal is whether the facts found make out the offence under S. 3 (1) of the Act. Section .3 (I) reads:

“Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.’’. ‘Brothel’ is defined in Cl. (a) of S. 2 It includes any house, room, or place or any portion of any house, room or place which is used for purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes. One wil1 be guilty of the offence under S. 3 (I) of the Act if he does any of the acts mentioned in that sub-section in relation to a brothel. The appellant’s house, on the facts found was being used as a brothel. The girls were offered for the purpose of prostitution. The house was used for such purposes, undoubtedly for the gain of the appellant who pocketed the money which was given by P. W. 2 for committing prostitution on Ambika. Of course, it can be presumed that the girls, who were being offered for the purpose of prostitution, would also obtain monetary gain out of the amount paid by P. W. 2. The appellant can therefore justifiably be said to be -’keeping a brothel’

It has been urged, however, that a solitary instance of the house of the appellant being used for the purpose of prostitution will not suffice for establishing that the house was being kept as a brothel’. It may be true that a place used once for the purpose of prostitution may not be a brothel, but it is a question of fact as to what conclusion should be drawn about the use of a place about which a person goes and freely asks for girls, where the person is shown girls to select from and where he does engage a girl for the purpose of prostitution. The conclusion to be derived from these circumstances about the place and the person ‘keeping’ it’ can be nothing else than that the place was being used as a brothel and the person in charge was so keeping it. It is not necessary that there should be evidence of repeated visits by persons to the place for the purpose of prostitution. A single instance coupled with the surrounding circumstances is sufficient to establish both that the place was being used as a brothel and that the person alleged was so keeping it.

A recent Bombay high court commented that ‘Prostitution is not illegal in India’ is bad in law. the correct law is as below:

No woman should be a ‘prostitute’ in India and live by prostitution, whether in a brothel or in privacy.

The preamble of the Act [Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956] shows that the Act was made to provide in pursuance of the International Convention signed at New York on May 9, 1950, for the suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls. The short title of the Act says that the Act may be called “The Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956”. Though the preamble as well as the short title shows that the Act was intended to prevent immoral traffic in women and girls, the other sections of the Act indicate that it was not the only purpose of the Act. Section 2(b) defines “girl” to mean a female who has not completed the age of twenty-one, S. 2(j), “women” to mean a female who has completed the age of 21 years, S. 2(e), “prostitute” to mean a female who offers her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind, and S. 2(f), “prostitution” to mean the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind. There are provisions in the Act for punishing men who run brothels and who procure girls and women for prostitution, for punishing women and girls who seduce or solicit for the purpose of prostitution in public places, for placing the rescued women and girls in detention in protective homes, for closure of brothels and eviction of offenders from premises, for restricting the movements of prostitutes and even for deporting them to places outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Section 7(1) provides for the punishment of a prostitute, if she carries on prostitution in any premises which are within a distance of two hundred yards of any place of public religious worship, educational institution, hostels, hospitals, nursing home or such other public place of any kind notified in that behalf by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate, as the case may be. Section 8 prohibits seducing or soliciting for purpose of prostitution in any public place or within sight of, and in such manner as to be seen or heard from, any public place, whether from within any building or house or not, and makes such soliciting or seducing an offence under the Act. Section 18 provides for the closure of brothels and eviction of offenders from the premises, if such premises are within a distance of two hundred yards from a public place mentioned in S. 7 (1) and are used or run as a brothel by any person or used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade. The Act was conceived to serve a public social purpose, viz., to suppress immoral traffic in women and girls, to rescue fallen women and girls and to prevent deterioration in public morals. The Act clearly defines a “prostitute” and gives definite indications from which places prostitutes should be removed or in respect whereof their movements should be restricted. [AIR 1964 SC 416 : (1964) 4 SCR 1002 : (1964) 1 CriLJ SC 304].

2. Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers, Act, 1982

3. Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act 1995

What is illegal : 

  1. Running a web service
  2. Running a phone call service
  3. Direct contact service
  4. Email solicitation
  5. Distribution obscene/nude photographs or VDO clippings for Service
  6. Spreading STD

Indian Supreme court in Smt. Devki Versus State of Haryana [AIR 1979 SC 1948 : (1980) 1 SCR 91 : (1979) 3 SCC 760 : (1979) CriLJ SC 1309] noted as below:

“Confronted by concurrent findings of guilt, counsel for the petitioner gave up his attack on the conviction and concentrated his fire on the sentence, which, in this case, was three years’ rigorous imprisonment. For what? For abducting a teenage girl and forcing her into sexual submission with commercial object, a racket which has become an enormous national menace, notwithstanding the constitutional concern for the weaker sex. Counsel dared to urge that the Probation of Offenders Act should be extended to this abominable culprit who had shown sufficient expertise in the art of abduction, seduction and sale of girls to others who offer a tempting price. The features of this case show that the petitioner suddenly descended in taxi-cab and kidnapped the young woman, and when she cried out, administered the potion which rendered her unconscious. Furthermore, a well laid-out plan is discernible when we see the geographical spread of the crime. From a small town in Bihar, the girl is dispatched to Dhanbad and from there, via Delhi, to Haryana, lodged in a house where young men were asked to view her for obvious immoral purposes. It is an insulting stultification of the amelioratory legislation viz. Probation of Offenders Act to extend its considered provisions to such anti-social, specialist criminals. All that we can do is to reject the plea with indignation and follow it up with an appeal to the State Governments of Bihar and of Haryana to put a special squad on the trail and hound out every such offender so that the streets of our towns and cities may be sanitized and safe after sunset for Indian womanhood. Dismissed”.

In Chitan J. Vaswani and another  Versus State of West Bengal and another[AIR 1975 SC 2473 : (1976) 2 SCR 300 : (1975) 2 SCC 829 : (1976) CriLJ SC 1- Krishna Iyer, J

“The scene is the Isias Bar, 15. Free School Street, Calcutta. A hall of enchantment extends nocturnal invitation to have a nice time with svelte sylphs. The entrance fee is but a paltry ` 15/- per man and inside is served animating liquor. Scantily clad female flesh of sweet seventeen or thereabouts flit about or sit on laps, to the heady tune of band music. They solicit carnal custom, and the willing male victims pay ` 30/-, choose whom they fancy drink together and, taking leave of decencies, indulge in promiscuous sex exercise legally described as operation prostitution. The stage is busy with many men and girls moving into rooms, lavatories and chambers. The curtain rises and a raiding party of police and excise officers surprise this erotic company drowned in drink and damsels”.

Teaching of  Krishna Iyer, J

We are in the International Women’s Year – a circumstance meaningful socially, but not relevant legally. Even so, it is time to tighten up this statute and we may permit ourselves a few concluding observations, hopefully. May be, there are other provisions of the Act which have contributed to its dismal failure in the field and the legislature must, in the International Year of Women, protect the virtue of the weaker sex from the purchasing power of the takers of virginity who sip every flower and change every hour. 15. No nation, with all its boasts, and all its hopes, can ever morally be clean till all its women are really free – free to live without sale of their young flesh to lascivious wealth or commercialising their luscious figures. India, to redeem this ‘gender justice’ and to proscribe prostitution whereby rich men buy poor women through houses of vice, has salved its social conscience by enacting the Act. But the law is so ill-drafted and lacunose that few who follow “the mast ancient Profession in the world” have been frightened into virtue and the customers of wine-cum-women are catered to respectably in bars, hotels and night-clubs in sophisticated and subtle ways, especially in our cities.[[AIR 1975 SC 2473]

Last line: A prostitute(escort) is not a criminal under law in India but her service is illegal , not protected by law, prohibited, restricted and police can stop her and question her  for her service.

Categories: Criminal

Tagged as: