In a comprehensive judgment on human trafficking and protection of victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) in India, on May 29, the Supreme Court gave detailed guidelines on establishing a uniform victim protection protocol for survivors of CSE.

Prajwala, an anti-trafficking non-governmental organisation (NGO) based in Hyderabad that runs shelter homes and works extensively on anti-trafficking policy, training, and rehabilitation, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court highlighting weaknesses in India’s anti-human trafficking framework.

In 2015, the Court disposed of the petition after taking note of governmental efforts aimed at strengthening anti-trafficking mechanisms, including proposals for an Organised 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 the principal laws dealing with trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation, including the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court held that when Article 23, which prohibits trafficking, is read together with Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and dignity, the State’s obligation does not end with rescuing a trafficking victim. Referring to earlier decisions such as People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Court held that rehabilitation forms an integral part of ensuring a life of dignity.

While recognising that several laws and schemes already exist to combat trafficking, including the BNS, the POCSO Act, the JJ Act and the NALSA Victims of Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation Scheme, 2015, the Court found serious shortcomings in implementation, particularly in relation to rehabilitation.

What is the judgment about?

Recognising the fragmented nature of the existing anti-trafficking framework, a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that when Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution are read together, victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) have a right to rehabilitation.

The Court issued a comprehensive “Victim Protection Plan” governing the pre-rescue, rescue, post-rescue, rehabilitation, reintegration and prosecution stages. It also made a series of 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 the trafficking of women and children for CSE, leaving aside other forms of trafficking such as forced labour and organ trafficking.

The judgment emphasised that trafficking is driven by structural vulnerabilities such as poverty, deprivation of rights and opportunities, and conflict, which function as “push factors”. These interact with “pull factors”, including aspirations for better livelihoods, with migration often serving as the connecting link.

The Court also acknowledged the increasing use of digital platforms for recruitment, grooming and exploitation, resulting in the emergence of cyber-enabled human trafficking.

“No single framework is sufficient to address the complexity of the phenomenon, and effective anti-trafficking work requires, at its core, a multidisciplinary approach,” the Court observed.

It recommended reconsideration of different sections of ITPA whch exposed trafficked victims to prosecution rather than protection.

The Court also criticised detention-oriented rehabilitation models as overly rigid and called for more flexible, survivor-centred alternatives.

Separately, it urged stronger legal protections for voluntary adult sex workers to prevent their marginalisation, while emphasising that such protections should not be conflated with an endorsement of trafficking.

On accountability, the Court asked the government to revisit Law Commission recommendations for creating a specific offence targeting police officers who abuse their authority over trafficking victims.

The Court also pointed to a drafting gap in the BNS with respect to Palermo Protocol 2000, which India ratified in 2011.

What is the survivors’ right to rehabilitation?

“A framework that does not address the needs and interests of victims concretely cannot be said to have addressed the problem of trafficking at all,” the Court observed.

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 noted 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 the 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 observed that the distinction often turns on the issue of consent, but that consent alone may not adequately capture the complex realities and vulnerabilities that shape individual choices.

At the same time, reiterating its earlier directions, the Court stated that the police must refrain from interfering where a sex worker is an adult participating voluntarily in sex work. During raids on brothels, such persons should not be harassed or victimised.

The Court further emphasised that anti-trafficking mechanisms should not automatically result in detention, institutionalisation or restrictions on the liberty of adults voluntarily engaged in sex work.

What is the Victim Protection Plan?

Acting under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stepped in to address gaps in the existing legal and institutional framework by laying down a detailed Victim Protection Plan that will operate until Parliament enacts dedicated legislation.

The Plan is built around several principles: respect for dignity and human rights, non-criminalisation of victims, informed consent, non-discrimination, privacy and safety.

Importantly, the Court sought to move away from viewing victims as passive recipients of protection and towards recognising them as individuals with agency over their own lives.

The Plan covers the entire trajectory of a victim’s interaction with the system. It begins with rescue operations, where Anti-Human Trafficking Units are to be strengthened and trained to conduct victim-sensitive interventions. Following rescue, victims are entitled to legal representation, medical care, counselling, safe custody and judicial oversight.

On rehabilitation, the Court stressed that institutional shelter alone cannot constitute rehabilitation. Measures must be tailored to the survivor’s circumstances and choices and include education, vocational training, livelihood opportunities and access to welfare schemes.

The Court also held that reintegration into families or communities should not occur without the survivor’s informed consent and where there is a risk of re-trafficking or further harm.

During prosecution, survivors must continue to receive legal and social support so that the criminal justice process itself does not become a source of re-traumatisation.

The Court also directed enhanced preventive measures, including monitoring at transit points such as railway stations and bus terminals, identification of vulnerable source areas, and standardised training for police officers, prosecutors, judges, legal aid lawyers and NGOs.

The Court declined to issue a mandamus directing the creation of the OCIA, observing that there was no complete legal vacuum in the field while leaving the matter open for future governmental consideration.

What directions were issued to States and Union Territories?

To operationalise the Victim Protection Plan, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to notify recognised 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 the Secretaries of the Women and Child Development Departments as Government Nodal Officers.

These steps are to be completed within three months, with compliance reports to be placed before the Court when the matter is taken up again in September 2026.

Why does the judgment matter?

The ruling is significant for three reasons. First, it recognises rehabilitation as a right flowing from Articles 21 and 23.

Second, it establishes a nationwide victim-protection framework in an area where implementation gaps have persisted despite multiple laws and schemes.

Third, it reiterates that anti-trafficking measures must not come at the cost of the rights, dignity and autonomy of adults voluntarily engaged in sex work.

Sunitha Krishnan, co-founder of Prajwala, told The Hindu that the Victim Protection Plan is significant because it places consent and dignity at the centre of every stage of intervention and translates these principles into concrete procedures governing rescue, admission to institutions, rehabilitation and release.

She also called upon governments to disclose data on trafficking survivors identified so far and provide information on the status of their rehabilitation.