In a comprehensive judgment on the protection of victims of human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) in India 29 may, supreme court Gave detailed guidelines on establishing uniform victim protection protocols for survivors of CSE.
Prajwala, an anti-trafficking non-governmental organization (NGO) Based in Hyderabad, which runs shelter homes and works extensively on anti-trafficking policy, training and rehabilitation, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court highlighting the weaknesses of India’s anti-human trafficking framework.
In 2015, the Court disposed of the petition after noting government efforts aimed at strengthening anti-trafficking mechanisms, including proposals for an Organized Crime Investigation Agency (OCIA). Subsequently, the applicants filed a miscellaneous application alleging that the directions issued in 2015 had not been implemented.
What does the existing legal framework provide?
The Court examined Article 23 of the Constitution and key laws dealing with trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation, including the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), the Indian Code of Justice, 2023 (BNS), the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012.
The Court held that when Article 23, which prohibits trafficking, is read with Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and dignity, the State’s obligation to rescue a trafficking victim does not end. Referring to earlier judgments such as People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India and Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, the Court said that rehabilitation is an integral part of ensuring a life of dignity.
While acknowledging that several laws and schemes already exist to combat trafficking, including BNS, POCSO Act, JJ Act and NALSA Victims of Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation Scheme, 2015, the Court found serious shortcomings in implementation, especially with regard to rehabilitation.
What is the decision about?
Recognizing the fragmented nature of the existing anti-trafficking framework, Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said that when Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution are read together, victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) have the right to rehabilitation.
The Court issued a comprehensive “Victim Protection Plan” governing pre-rescue, rescue, post-rescue, rehabilitation, reintegration and prosecution phases. It also made several recommendations aimed at strengthening India’s anti-trafficking legal and institutional framework.
For the purposes of the present case, the Court limited its consideration to trafficking in women and children for CSE, excluding other forms of trafficking such as forced labor and organ trafficking.
The judgment emphasized that trafficking is driven by structural vulnerabilities such as poverty, lack of rights and opportunities, and conflict, which act as “attraction factors”. These interact with “pull factors” including aspirations for better livelihoods, with migration often acting as the connecting link.
The Court also acknowledged the increasing use of digital platforms for recruitment, grooming and exploitation, resulting in the rise of cyber-enabled human trafficking.
The Court stated, “No single framework is sufficient to address the complexity of the phenomenon, and effective anti-trafficking work fundamentally requires a multidisciplinary approach.”
It recommended reconsidering various sections of the ITPA that expose trafficking victims to prosecution rather than protection.
The Court also criticized the custody-oriented rehabilitation model as being overly harsh and called for more flexible, survivor-centered alternatives.
Separately, it urged stronger legal protections for voluntary adult sex workers to prevent their marginalization, while emphasizing that such protections should not be conflated with support for trafficking.
On accountability, the Court asked the government to reconsider the Law Commission’s recommendations to create a specific offense targeting police officers who abuse their authority over trafficking victims.
The Court also pointed to drafting differences in the BNS with respect to the Palermo Protocol 2000, which India ratified in 2011.
What is the right of survivors to rehabilitation?
The Court said, “A framework that does not concretely address the needs and interests of victims cannot be said to have addressed the problem of trafficking.”
The Court held that a combined reading of Articles 21 and 23 establishes that victims of trafficking for CSE have a right to rehabilitation.
Discussing the content of rehabilitation, the Court held that it includes the provision of shelter, medical care, psychological support, compensation, education, vocational training and livelihood support, all measures necessary to enable a survivor to sustain herself independently. “Without this, rehabilitation is an empty promise,” the court said.
What did the Court say about voluntary adult sex work?
The Court noted a long-standing debate between those who view prostitution primarily through the lens of coercion and those who distinguish between forced prostitution and voluntary adult sex work.
It found that the difference is often on the issue of consent, but consent alone does not adequately capture the complex realities and vulnerabilities that shape individual choices.
Also, the court reiterated its earlier directions that where a sex worker is an adult and is voluntarily participating in sex work, the police should refrain from interfering. Such persons should not be harassed or harassed during raids on brothels.
The Court further emphasized that anti-trafficking mechanisms should not result in the detention, institutionalization, or restrictions on the liberty of adults who voluntarily engage in sex work.
What is the Victim Protection Scheme?
Acting under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stepped in to address the gaps in the existing legal and institutional framework by creating a detailed victim protection scheme that would operate until Parliament enacts dedicated legislation.
The plan is built around several principles: respect for dignity and human rights, non-criminalization of victims, informed consent, non-discrimination, privacy and security.
Importantly, the Court sought to move from viewing victims as passive recipients of protection to recognizing them as individuals who have agency over their lives.
This plan covers the entire trajectory of the victim’s interaction with the system. This starts with rescue operations, where anti-trafficking units have to be strengthened and trained to conduct victim-sensitive interventions. After rescue, victims are entitled to legal representation, medical care, counselling, safe custody and judicial supervision.
On rehabilitation, the Court emphasized that institutional shelter alone cannot be rehabilitation. Measures should be tailored to the circumstances and preferences of survivors and should include access to education, vocational training, livelihood opportunities and welfare schemes.
The Court also recognized that reintegration into families or communities should not take place without the informed consent of the survivor and where there is a risk of re-trafficking or further harm.
During prosecution, survivors should continue to receive legal and social support so that the criminal justice process itself does not become a source of re-traumatization.
The Court also directed to increase preventive measures including surveillance at transit points such as railway stations and bus terminals, identification of vulnerable source areas and standardized training for police officers, prosecutors, judges, legal aid lawyers and NGOs.
The Court declined to issue a mandamus directing the creation of the OCIA, noting that there was no absolute legal void in this area, while leaving the matter open for future government consideration.
What instructions were issued to the states and union territories?
To implement the Victim Protection Scheme, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to notify recognized welfare institutions, prepare district-wise panels of social welfare workers, appoint senior police officers of the rank of Additional Director General of Police as nodal officers and designate secretaries of women and child development departments as government nodal officers.
These steps are to be completed within three months, with the compliance report to be placed before the court when the matter is taken up again in September 2026.
Why does the decision matter?
This decision is important for three reasons. First, it recognizes rehabilitation as a right derived from Articles 21 and 23.
Second, it establishes a nationwide victim-protection framework in a region where implementation gaps remain despite multiple laws and schemes.
Third, it reiterates that anti-trafficking measures should not come at the expense of the rights, dignity and autonomy of adults engaged in voluntary sex work.
Prajwala co-founder Sunita Krishnan told The Hindu Victim protection planning is important because it places consent and dignity at the center of every stage of intervention and translates these principles into concrete processes governing rescue, admission to institutions, rehabilitation and release.
They also called on governments to disclose data on trafficking survivors identified so far and provide information on their rehabilitation status.
