A ‘victim-centric’ shift in cases of sex trafficking
The Supreme Court, in Prajwala v. Union of India (decided 29 May 2026), issued a comprehensive "Victim Protection Plan" laying down nationwide directions for the rescue, protection and rehabilitation of survivors of human trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation
The judgment held that rehabilitation of trafficking survivors is not merely a matter of executive policy but an enforceable component of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution
The Court adopted a "victim-centric" framework, directing that survivors must always be treated as crime victims and never as offenders, and that rehabilitation measures must be based on the survivor's free and informed consent rather than imposed on them
The ruling was delivered while exercising the Court's powers to issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights and to do complete justice in a pending matter
Article 23 — Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour
Article 23, placed under the Right against Exploitation in Part III of the Constitution, prohibits "traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour," making any contravention a punishable offence. Unlike most fundamental rights, Article 23 is enforceable against private individuals as well as the State, and its protection extends to citizens and non-citizens alike.
Key Details
- Article 23(1) prohibits trafficking and forced labour; Article 23(2) permits the State to impose compulsory service for public purposes without discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste or class
- Article 23 is given statutory teeth through the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and the trafficking offence provisions of criminal law
- Comparable protection for children exists under Article 24 (prohibition of child labour in hazardous employment)
The Supreme Court's victim protection framework operationalises the Article 23 guarantee, translating a constitutional prohibition into concrete institutional obligations for rescue, protection and rehabilitation.
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA)
The ITPA is India's principal statute targeting commercial sexual exploitation. It does not criminalise the act of prostitution itself but penalises third-party exploitation — running brothels, procuring, pimping and trafficking for prostitution — while also empowering magistrates to order rescue, protective custody and rehabilitation of victims.
Key Details
- Section 17 empowers a magistrate to order a rescued person's removal to and detention in a protective home for a period (typically one to three years) for care and rehabilitation
- The Act has long been criticised, including by the National Commission for Women and civil society groups, for allowing rescue-and-rehabilitation provisions to be used in ways that restrict the liberty of the very persons they are meant to protect
- The Court's 2026 directions respond to this criticism by conditioning rehabilitation on the survivor's consent rather than treating it as a mandatory, custodial process
The judgment's "victim-centric" and "consent-based" language directly addresses the coercive rescue-and-detention practices that have been the ITPA's most contested feature.
Article 21 and the Judicially Expanded "Right to Live with Dignity"
Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Supreme Court has read an expansive set of entitlements into this bare text, including the right to live with human dignity — first articulated clearly in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), which held that the right to life is not confined to mere animal existence but includes dignity, adequate nutrition, shelter and humane treatment.
Key Details
- Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) — Supreme Court held Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity, decided in the context of a detenu's right to meet family and counsel
- This dignity-based reading of Article 21 has since been extended to prisoners, bonded labourers, sex workers and, now, trafficking survivors
- The 2026 judgment builds on this line of precedent to hold that a survivor's right to rehabilitation — and their right to refuse imposed rehabilitation — both flow from the dignity component of Article 21
By anchoring rehabilitation in Article 21 rather than treating it as discretionary welfare, the Court makes the State's rehabilitation obligations judicially enforceable rather than optional policy.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 143 (Trafficking of Persons)
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code from 1 July 2024, re-enacted the trafficking offence earlier found in IPC Section 370 as BNS Section 143, with updated language on the means and purposes of trafficking and enhanced punishment for offences involving children.
Key Details
- BNS Section 143 prescribes rigorous imprisonment of not less than seven years, extendable up to ten years, along with a fine, for trafficking of persons
- Enhanced punishment applies where the trafficked person is a minor or where trafficking is for purposes such as forced labour, sexual exploitation or organ removal
- The ITPA, 1956 remains the specialised statute for commercial sexual exploitation and continues to operate alongside the BNS's general trafficking provision
The Victim Protection Plan operates against the backdrop of this dual criminal-law framework (ITPA plus BNS Section 143), and directs authorities to ensure that survivor protection under both frameworks is implemented consistently.
- Case: Prajwala v. Union of India, decided by the Supreme Court on 29 May 2026 (Miscellaneous Application in a long-pending writ petition first filed in 2004)
- Constitutional basis of rehabilitation: Article 21 (right to live with dignity), read with Article 23 (prohibition of trafficking)
- Key precedent cited for Article 21 dignity: Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi (1981)
- Primary anti-trafficking statute: Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, particularly Section 17 on rescue and protective homes
- Criminal law provision: BNS Section 143 (effective 1 July 2024), replacing IPC Section 370, with punishment of 7–10 years' rigorous imprisonment plus fine