India, Oct. 24 -- The Supreme Court's direction to magistratesto conduct a mandatory "threshold inquiry" in the event of an anti-trafficking operationshould be seen as more than a mereprocedural intervention. The move, which seeks to distinguish between voluntary sex work by an adult woman and human trafficking, returns a woman's agency back to her. The inquiry, in itself, is not a new thing. Magistrates have long been tasked with inquiring about a trafficking victim's details, particularly when ascertaining their age. The significance of the top court's recent directive, however, lies in the intent behind the inquiry. By seeking to know whether the adult woman has consented to sex work, the court pushes the State to consider her fundamental right to life and livelihood of her choosing. An anti-trafficking raid on a brothel operatesfrom the assumption that all sex workers arevictims of sexual exploitation and coercion, andthus need rescuing. Everything follows from this - the care homes they are sent to, the dismantling of the set-up in which they work, the criminalisationof their networks and clients, the medical check-ups they are subjected to while detained, including ossification tests to determine their age, and their repatriation to their home states. However, to link sex work, trafficking andcoercion is untenable, not least because it fails totake the woman's consent into account, rarely reflecting what's actually taking place on theground. There is already an asymmetry of powerin the context in which adult women pursue sex work, and by focussing on their rescue and rehabilitation, anti-trafficking groups reinforce the view that all women in sex work are incapable of making the choice to exit. The top court challenges this infantilisation. The directives issued by the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan build on the court's May 29 judgment, which held that a victim's consent is also a primary consideration in decisions on long-term custody in a protective home or restoration to her family. Rehabilitation cannot be imposed against a victim's will as a matter of routine. The on-ground reality diverges widely from the stereotypes in circulation. Sex work is not a singular kind of work - women operate out of streets, brothels and even their own homes. Many sex workers have formed unions and groups to advocate for their rights, and to seek State-mandated medical treatment, prophylactics, and access to State-run childcare. Many have, over years, drawn our attention to the moralistic underpinning of attitudes that consider sex work to be a form of suffering; and many speak about the advantages that such a livelihood option gives them compared to other forms of unskilled low-paid labour that are otherwise available. They only ask to be rescued from the social stigma that follows them and the harassment of police officials, landlords and school authorities. In its May judgement, the apex court underscored that sex work, in itself, is not an offence under the law. Thus, any adult woman voluntarily doing this work cannot be arrested, penalised or victimised during a raid. Through its recent directives, the Supreme Court upholds an adult woman's right to exit, as much as her right to remain....