<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/aa5880594aa274c4</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/sex-work-india-prajwala/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Dignity Without Autonomy - On The Indian Supreme Court’s Treatment Of Sex Workers’ Rights</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Mittal, Pranav</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2026-07-13</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Autonomy</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Human Dignity</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Human Trafficking</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>India</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Indian Constitution</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Indian Supreme Court</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Indiana. Supreme Court of Judicature</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Menschenwürde</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Prostitution</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>dignity</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>sex work</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Indiana. Supreme Court of Judicature</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Menschenwürde</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Prostitution</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>In Prajwala v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation have a right to rehabilitation under Article 23 read with the right to dignity under Article 21. While the judgment has been celebrated for its three-dimensional dignity framework, it is a missed opportunity to articulate a constitutional basis for protecting the rights of sex workers. The Court's dignity framework – calibrated against objectification in trafficking – is insufficient alone to address persons who assert agency over their work. I argue that reading it alongside decisional autonomy fills the gap.</dc:description>
</dc>
