Sunitha Krishnan hails Supreme Court’s landmark victim protection protocol for trafficking survivors
HYDERABAD: The Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgment that puts survivors of commercial sexual exploitation at the center of the criminal justice system. The Court ordered the country’s first Victim Protection Protocol(VPP). This protocol recognizes the rights of survivors of trafficking in persons under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
In response, Sunitha Krishnan, founder of Prajwala and petitioner in the case, called the judgment historic. She said, “For the first time, a court has understood the depth of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. The judgment brings survivors from the margins to the center.” She also said this may be the first time an Indian court recognized the Palermo Protocol’s definition of trafficking in persons.
The bench included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. They said rehabilitation is a statutory right, not a matter of charity. The Court also said living with dignity under Article 21 means having basic material needs met.
In addition, the Court said, “We must stop treating trafficked persons as peripheral to the trial. The criminal process must revolve around her.” The judgment classifies adult women rescued from prostitution into three groups: those trafficked against their will, those who were trafficked but later continued voluntarily, and those who entered sex work by choice.
Moreover, the ruling clarifies the difference between survivors of trafficking and those engaged voluntarily in sex work. The Court said the Victim Protection Protocol should focus on the survivor’s informed consent. All decisions about care, protection, detention, and reintegration must respect her autonomy. Officials can override consent only in exceptional cases, such as safety risks or lack of genuine consent. In such instances, the magistrate must provide written reasons.
Additionally, the judgment sets strict protocols for rescue operations. Police cannot verbally or physically abuse survivors. Rescued individuals are always treated as victims and cannot be arrested under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Survivors must be kept separate from alleged offenders at all times. Police stations cannot hold survivors overnight. Every survivor has the right to legal representation. For children, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prevails over all other laws.
The Court said magistrates must conduct a preliminary inquiry for adult women who wish to continue in sex work. A court-appointed social worker must assist with this process. If the woman’s statement conflicts with the social worker’s report, the magistrate can order a detailed inquiry.
Furthermore, the Victim Protection Protocol establishes a comprehensive rehabilitation framework. Social workers or case managers will support each survivor. Protective or shelter homes must provide trauma-informed care, healthcare, life skills, education, and vocational training. Authorities must prepare an individualized reintegration plan 60 days before each survivor’s release. Officials must continue follow-up with survivors for three years after release.
On the matter of enforcement, the Court did not create a new organized crime unit. Instead, it ordered improved coordination among existing agencies. These include the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Child Welfare Committees, Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs), One Stop Centres, legal services authorities, and state-run protection homes.
In terms of operational details, the Court said each AHTU must be headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP). State governments must formally designate AHTUs as police stations. AHTUs must maintain updated databases on traffickers and survivors. They must update these databases monthly and share the information with the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).
The Court recommended that Parliament enact comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation. It also called for amendments to Sections 7, 8, and 20 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as these provisions are often misused against survivors. The Court urged the government to address cyber-enabled trafficking in persons. The judgment allows any adult woman in sex work to seek exit and rehabilitation by applying under Section 19 of the ITPA.
