Prajwalav.Union of India and Others

Legal Analysis: Prajwala v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 609

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2004 – directions on victim protection plan for trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The petitioner, an anti‑trafficking organisation, had filed the original writ petition in 2004 seeking a comprehensive "Victim Protection Plan" for victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation (CSE). In 2015, this Court disposed of the writ petition after the Union of India undertook to: (i) set up an Organised Crime Investigation Agency (OCIA); and (ii) enact a comprehensive legislation on trafficking. Nearly a decade later, the Union of India reversed its stance, contending that existing laws (ITPA, BNS, NIA Act) and schemes were sufficient. The Court held that victims of trafficking for CSE have a right to rehabilitation under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. Finding a serious lacuna and the absence of any binding protocol, the Court, in exercise of powers under Articles 32 and 142, issued an exhaustive "Victim Protection Plan" covering pre‑rescue, rescue, post‑rescue, rehabilitation, repatriation, prosecution and prevention. The Court declined to direct the creation of OCIA, noting that the NIA already has jurisdiction over trafficking offences. It made extensive recommendations to the legislature, including re‑examining provisions that criminalise victims (Sections 7, 8, 20 ITPA), reimagining the detention‑based shelter model, and removing the ‘means’ element for child victims under Section 143 BNS.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Prajwala v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 609

Miscellaneous Application No.: 530 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2004

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Original Civil Jurisdiction)

Nature of Proceedings: Miscellaneous application seeking compliance of the Court’s order dated 09.12.2015 disposing of the original writ petition.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (right to life and dignity), Article 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour), Article 32 (writ jurisdiction), Article 142 (power to do complete justice).

• Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) – Sections 2(f) (definition of prostitution), 3–6 (offences relating to brothels, living on earnings, procuring, detaining), 7, 8, 20 (offences that criminalise prostitutes), 15–17 (search, rescue, inquiry and custody), 19 (voluntary application for care), 21 (protective homes), 23 (rule‑making power).

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Section 143 (trafficking of persons), Section 144 (exploitation of trafficked person), Section 111 (organised crime).

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJA) – Sections 2(14) (child in need of care and protection), 31, 36, 37 (procedure before CWC), 39, 40 (rehabilitation and restoration).

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) – Section 16 (abetment), Section 42A (overriding effect).

• National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Sections 3–8 (investigation of scheduled offences, including Sections 370/370A IPC which correspond to Sections 143/144 BNS).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / BNSS – Section 395 (compensation to victims).

• Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – NALSA Scheme on Victims of Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation, 2015.

• Mission Shakti Programme – Shakti Sadans (integrated relief and rehabilitation homes) and One Stop Centres.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235 – Article 23 is wide and unlimited, enforceable against private persons; forced labour includes economic compulsion.

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 – Presumption in favour of bonded labour; rehabilitation is essential.

• Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of M.P. (1984) 3 SCC 243 – Identification, rescue and rehabilitation are constitutional obligations under Articles 21 and 23.

• Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State of T.N. (2004) 12 SCC 381 – Rehabilitation is the primary issue in bonded labour cases.

• Vishal Jeet v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 318 – Directions for Central and State Advisory Committees on child prostitution.

• Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of W.B. (2022) 20 SCC 220 – Voluntary sex workers should not be arrested or victimised during raids; police must refrain from interfering.

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 – Power under Article 32 to issue guidelines to fill legislative vacuum.

• Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2020) 13 SCC 585 – Directions under Article 142 should be exceptional, only when there is a vacuum and no pending legislative consideration.

3. Relevant Facts

The petitioner, Prajwala, an anti‑trafficking organisation based in Hyderabad, filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2004 seeking a comprehensive Victim Protection Plan for victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation (CSE). The petition highlighted the inadequacy of rescue and rehabilitation mechanisms, the treatment of victims as criminals, and the absence of a binding protocol.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Union of India acknowledged the need for a Victim Protection Plan. An Inter‑Ministerial Committee was constituted, and a draft legislation was prepared. On 09.12.2015, this Court disposed of the writ petition after the Union of India undertook to: (i) set up an Organised Crime Investigation Agency (OCIA) by 30.09.2016; and (ii) enact a comprehensive legislation on trafficking, with a draft to be prepared within six months.

Thereafter, the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018 was passed by the Lok Sabha but lapsed with the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha. A revised Bill of 2021 did not progress. Instead, the Union of India changed its stance, arguing that the existing legal framework – the ITPA, BNS (Sections 143, 144), the NIA Act (which included Sections 370/370A IPC in its schedule), the JJA, POCSO, and the Mission Shakti scheme – was sufficient. It also contended that the NIA’s empowerment to investigate trafficking offences rendered the OCIA unnecessary.

The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2022 seeking compliance with the 2015 order. The Court expanded the scope and after detailed hearing, including the appointment of an Amicus Curiae, issued the present judgment.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether victims of trafficking for CSE have a right to rehabilitation under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.

Issue No. 2: Whether there exists a gap or lacuna in the present legislative and institutional framework for rescue, protection, rehabilitation and repatriation of victims of trafficking for CSE.

Issue No. 3: Whether this Court should issue directions for a comprehensive Victim Protection Plan under Articles 32 and 142.

Issue No. 4: Whether this Court should direct the creation of the Organised Crime Investigation Agency (OCIA).

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Victims of trafficking for CSE have a right to rehabilitation under Articles 21 and 23 (Paras 251-290).

The Court held that a combined reading of Articles 21 and 23 establishes that victims of exploitative structures, including trafficking for CSE, are entitled not merely to rescue but to full rehabilitation. Rescue without rehabilitation returns the victim to the same conditions of vulnerability that made her a target. Relying on Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Neeraja Chaudhary and Public Union for Civil Liberties, the Court observed that the State’s obligation flows directly from the fundamental rights against exploitation and the right to live with dignity. The right to rehabilitation includes: (i) protection from further harm; (ii) access to material well‑being (shelter, medical care, psychological support, compensation, vocational training); (iii) measures to reduce stigma and isolation; and (iv) respect for the victim’s agency and choices.

B. Existing legal framework is fragmented and lacks a binding Victim Protection Plan (Paras 291-302).

The Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of the ITPA, BNS, JJA, POCSO and various schemes. It found that despite the 2015 undertaking, no comprehensive protocol had been formulated. The ITPA’s offence‑creating provisions conflate prostitution with trafficking, leading to a one‑size‑fits‑all approach that fails to distinguish between voluntarily engaged adult sex workers, trafficked victims, and those who were trafficked but continue voluntarily. Several States have not framed rules under Section 23 ITPA. The implementation of the Mission Shakti programme is uneven, with inadequate numbers of functional Shakti Sadans and a lack of mental health, de‑addiction and vocational training services in many States. The Court concluded that the State has not taken “reasonable measures” to safeguard the right to rehabilitation.

C. A comprehensive Victim Protection Plan is issued under Articles 32 and 142 (Paras 303-362).

Invoking the principles from Vishaka and Dr. Ashwani Kumar, the Court held that the existing vacuum and the unjustified abandonment of efforts to formulate a plan left no option but to issue binding directions. The plan is structured into nine fundamental principles (dignity, non‑criminalisation, informed consent, non‑stigmatisation, safety, privacy, right to information, individualised care, best interest) and detailed guidelines for pre‑rescue (strengthening AHTUs, initiation of rescue), rescue (mandatory composition of rescue team, protection from abuse), post‑rescue (threshold inquiry for voluntary adult sex workers, primacy of victim’s consent, role of magistrate), rehabilitation (individualised care plan, standards for protective homes, education, vocational training, mental health and de‑addiction support), repatriation/reintegration, prosecution/trial, and prevention/training. The guidelines specifically require magistrates to conduct a preliminary inquiry to identify voluntary adult sex workers and to give primacy to the victim’s consent before ordering detention in a protective home or restoration to family.

D. No direction for constitution of OCIA (Paras 363-386).

The Court noted that the NIA Act was amended in 2019 to include Sections 370 and 370A IPC (now Sections 143, 144 BNS) as scheduled offences. The NIA has the power to investigate trafficking cases with inter‑State or international ramifications. While the functions originally envisioned for the OCIA (intelligence collation, capacity building, coordination of rescue and rehabilitation) are presently scattered across multiple bodies (Anti‑Human Trafficking Cell, AHTUs, CBI, NIA, MWCD, etc.), there is no “gap or lacuna” that compels judicial intervention. The Court declined to issue a mandamus for creation of a new statutory body, leaving the matter to the discretion of the executive and Parliament.

E. Recommendations to the legislature (Paras 387-424).

The Court made strong recommendations, including: (i) introducing a proviso in Sections 7, 8 and 20 ITPA to exclude victims of trafficking from prosecution; (ii) re‑examining the detention‑based model of protective homes and offering alternative, non‑custodial modes of rehabilitation; (iii) recognising and protecting the rights of voluntary adult sex workers; (iv) introducing specific offences for police officers who abuse victims or delay production before a magistrate; (v) removing the ‘means’ element for child victims under Section 143 BNS to align with the Palermo Protocol; (vi) continued consideration of a comprehensive trafficking legislation; and (vii) addressing cyber‑enabled human trafficking.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• A combined reading of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution establishes that victims of trafficking for CSE have a fundamental right to rehabilitation, not merely to rescue. The State is constitutionally obligated to provide material well‑being, protection from further harm, stigma reduction, and respect for the victim’s agency.

• The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, despite defining prostitution as exploitation, does not criminalise all prostitution. However, its conflation of sex trafficking and prostitution results in a one‑size‑fits‑all procedure under Section 17. This heterogeneity requires a threshold inquiry to identify voluntary adult sex workers and accord primacy to the victim’s consent before any order of detention or restoration.

• Under Section 17 ITPA, the magistrate must conduct a preliminary inquiry into voluntariness. If the victim states that she is engaging in prostitution voluntarily and the social worker’s report does not indicate safety risks or coercion, the magistrate shall release her. The victim’s consent is the governing factor for final orders of detention in a protective home or reintegration with family; departure is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where safety is at risk or consent is obtained through coercion.

• Child victims of trafficking for CSE fall within the definition of “children in need of care and protection” under the JJA, 2015. The procedure under the JJA and the POCSO Act prevails over any inconsistent provision in the ITPA.

• The power of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 142 to issue binding guidelines to fill a legislative vacuum extends to formulating a detailed Victim Protection Plan for trafficking victims, until Parliament enacts a comprehensive law.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first traced the history of the litigation, noting that the original writ petition was disposed of on 09.12.2015 based on the Union of India’s undertakings. The Court then examined the change in the government’s stance – from active formulation of a comprehensive legislation and the OCIA, to a position that the existing framework is sufficient.

The Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of the Palermo Protocol (definition of trafficking, the 3P’s: prevention, punishment, protection) and its reflection in Indian law. It contrasted the ITPA (which treats all third‑party involvement in prostitution as trafficking without requiring a ‘means’ element) with Section 143 BNS (which requires all three elements of act, means and purpose, even for children). The Court noted the conflation between sex trafficking and prostitution as a source of legal ambiguity.

On the right to rehabilitation, the Court reviewed its earlier decisions on bonded labour and forced labour, holding that the same constitutional logic applies to victims of trafficking for CSE. The Court emphasised that dignity (Article 21) has three dimensions: inherent worth, material well‑being, and recognition/stigma. The right to rehabilitation must address all three.

The Court then analysed the State’s claim that existing measures are adequate. It pointed to the absence of rules under Section 23 ITPA in most States, the poor implementation of the Mission Shakti programme (discrepancies between approved and functional OSCs, inadequate mental health and de‑addiction services, lack of half‑way homes), and the continued victimisation of rescued persons under Sections 7, 8 and 20 ITPA. Concluding that the State had not taken “reasonable measures”, the Court proceeded to issue the Victim Protection Plan.

The Court also addressed the controversy over consent and agency. It rejected the binary of victim/agent, noting that vulnerability and agency coexist. It designed the plan to give primacy to the victim’s wishes while providing safeguards against coercion.

Finally, the Court declined to order the creation of OCIA, deferring to the legislature, but made extensive recommendations for legal reform.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a landmark in the field of anti‑trafficking law in India. It firmly grounds the right to rehabilitation in Articles 21 and 23, moving beyond a purely crime‑control approach. The Victim Protection Plan is extraordinarily detailed, covering every stage from pre‑rescue to reintegration, and incorporates principles of human rights, non‑criminalisation, and victim agency. The plan’s requirement of a threshold inquiry for voluntary adult sex workers and the primacy of the victim’s consent before detention in a protective home is a significant shift from the paternalistic and often coercive practices of the past. The Court’s reliance on the 64th Law Commission Report and international instruments (Palermo Protocol, Recommended Principles) gives the judgment a strong normative foundation.

Potential concerns: The judgment is extremely long (over 450 pages in the original). The sheer number of guidelines may pose implementation challenges, especially for States with weak administrative capacity. The Court declined to direct the creation of the OCIA, which might have provided a single‑point coordination mechanism; instead, the plan relies on existing AHTUs, the Anti‑Trafficking Cell, and the NIA, which may continue to work in silos. The recommendation to re‑examine the detention model is only a suggestion; the Court did not strike down or modify Sections 17(4) and 19(3) ITPA, leaving the mandatory “detention” language in place. However, the guidelines effectively require the magistrate to seek consent before ordering such detention, which may lead to tension with the statutory text.

Practical impact: The judgment will be cited in every case involving rescue and rehabilitation of victims of trafficking for CSE. All State Governments and Union Territories must now implement the Victim Protection Plan. Police officers, magistrates, and protective home administrators will need extensive training. The guidelines will also impact the interpretation of Section 17 ITPA – magistrates will be required to conduct the threshold inquiry and give primacy to consent. The recommendations for legislative amendment may influence future bills.

9. Final Outcome

The Miscellaneous Application was disposed of with the issuance of a comprehensive Victim Protection Plan (set out in Paragraph 362 of the judgment).

• The Court held that victims of trafficking for CSE have a fundamental right to rehabilitation under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.

• The Court found that the existing legal and institutional framework is fragmented and lacks a binding Victim Protection Plan, resulting in serious lacunae in the protection of victims’ rights.

• In exercise of powers under Articles 32 and 142, the Court issued detailed binding guidelines covering:
  Fundamental principles (dignity, non‑criminalisation, informed consent, non‑stigmatisation, safety, privacy, right to information, individualised care, best interest).
  Pre‑rescue (strengthening AHTUs, composition of rescue teams, mandatory inclusion of women police and social workers, confidentiality).
  Rescue (prohibition of abuse, separation of victims from offenders, transport to police station/hospital).
  Post‑rescue (threshold inquiry for voluntary adult sex workers; primacy of victim’s consent before detention in protective home or restoration to family; role of magistrate; interim safe custody).
  Rehabilitation (individualised care plan, standards for protective homes, medical care, mental health, de‑addiction, education, vocational training, recreational activities, case workers, social audit).
  Repatriation/reintegration (individualised post‑release plan, home investigation, consent‑based return, monthly follow‑up for six months and quarterly for three years).
  Prosecution and trial (special courts, witness protection, video‑conferencing, compensation under BNSS).
  Prevention and training.
  Guidelines for applications under Section 19 ITPA.

• The Court declined to issue a direction for the constitution of the OCIA, holding that the NIA already has jurisdiction over trafficking offences and that the matter is best left to the executive and legislature.

• The Court made extensive recommendations to the Union of India and State Governments, including:
  Amending Sections 7, 8 and 20 ITPA to exclude victims of trafficking from prosecution.
  Re‑examining the detention‑based model of protective homes and providing alternative rehabilitation options.
  Recognising and protecting the rights of voluntary adult sex workers.
  Introducing specific offences for police officers who abuse victims or delay production before a magistrate.
  Removing the ‘means’ element for child victims under Section 143 BNS.
  Continuing efforts for a comprehensive trafficking legislation.
  Addressing cyber‑enabled human trafficking.

• Additional directions were issued for States/UTs to notify recognised welfare institutions, prepare lists of social welfare workers, designate Police and Government Nodal Officers.

• The matter was directed to be listed again in September 2026 for reporting compliance with the additional directions.

• A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to all High Courts, the Home Secretary, and the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

10. Practical Application

For State Governments and UT administrations: Immediately implement the Victim Protection Plan. Establish or strengthen AHTUs with the mandated composition (DSP, special police officers, women police, Child Welfare Police Officer, cybercrime officers, social workers, representatives from line departments). Notify recognised welfare institutions under Section 15(6A) ITPA. Prepare State‑wide lists of social welfare workers. Designate ADGP level officer as Police Nodal Officer and Secretary, Women and Child Development as Government Nodal Officer. Ensure that all protective homes (Shakti Sadans) meet the prescribed standards (dormitories, toilets, medical facilities, counsellors, vocational training). Conduct quarterly social audits. Train all stakeholders (police, magistrates, social workers, counsellors) on the guidelines.

For magistrates dealing with rescued victims under Section 17 ITPA: At the first production, inform the victim of her rights. Conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether she is a voluntary adult sex worker. If she clearly states voluntariness and the social worker’s report does not indicate safety risks or coercion, release her. If a deeper inquiry is ordered, ensure that the victim’s consent is the primary factor for any final order of detention in a protective home or restoration to family. Only depart from her wishes in exceptional circumstances (safety risk or coercion). Ensure that interim safe custody does not exceed 21 days and that the victim is provided with legal representation and psychological support.

For police officers and AHTUs: Do not arrest or victimise rescued persons. Do not invoke Sections 7, 8 or 20 ITPA against victims of trafficking. Separate victims from offenders at the rescue site. Include women police officers and NGO social workers in the rescue team. Ensure that victims are not detained overnight at the police station; produce them before the magistrate or CWC on the same day, or transfer them to a protective home. Record statements only after the victim’s initial trauma is overcome and with the assistance of a lawyer or social worker.

For NGOs and social workers: Cooperate with AHTUs as members of the non‑official advisory body and as recognised welfare institutions. Assist in pre‑rescue recce, during rescue, and in post‑rescue counselling. Provide input for the threshold inquiry and the deeper inquiry under Section 17(2). Help formulate individualised care plans. Conduct follow‑up for six months quarterly and three years thereafter. Report any violation of the guidelines to the Magistrate or the Nodal Officers.

For lawyers and legal services authorities: Ensure that every victim produced before a magistrate has legal representation from the DLSA. Inform victims of their rights, including the right to consent to detention or restoration. Assist victims in filing applications for release after 90 days (if detained without consent). Assist victims in claiming compensation under Section 396 BNSS and accessing other welfare schemes (Mission Shakti, NALSA Scheme, etc.).

For courts (High Courts and Supreme Court): While hearing matters related to trafficking for CSE, insist on compliance with the Victim Protection Plan. Monitor the implementation of the additional directions (notification of institutions, designation of nodal officers, etc.). Direct State Governments to file compliance reports.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Right to rehabilitation – Para 279, quoting Neeraja Chaudhary):
"It is the plainest requirement of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution that bonded labourers must be identified and released and on release, they must be suitably rehabilitated... any failure of action on the part of the State Government... would be the clearest violation of Article 21 apart from Article 23 of the Constitution."

Line 2 (Human rights approach – Para 256):
"A human rights approach to trafficking reframes the problem. Trafficking is not only a crime to be prosecuted, but also an act which violates the fundamental rights of real people. Shifting to a human rights framework means shifting the lens: to seeing trafficked persons as people who have been wronged and who bear rights."

Line 3 (Conflation between sex trafficking and prostitution – Para 209):
"Under Section 143, for an act of sexual exploitation to amount to trafficking, all three elements of act, means, and purpose must be fulfilled... The ITPA, on the other hand, operates on a fundamentally different logic. The ITPA requires no such 'means'... conduct that would not qualify as trafficking under Section 143 may nevertheless constitute an offence under the ITPA."

Line 4 (Need for threshold inquiry – Para 335):
"If the intent of non-interference is so evident at the stage of removal itself, it is only natural that the procedure under Section 17 must also reflect and give effect to such intent... the magistrate must conduct an initial threshold inquiry into whether the person before him is a voluntary adult sex worker who does not wish to be subjected to long term safe custody."

Line 5 (Primacy of victim’s consent – Para 343):
"We are of the strong view that if the victim does not consent to long-term safe custody, the magistrate must not proceed with it. The victim's consent should be the primary and governing consideration when taking such decisions. A departure from the victim's expressed wishes must be the exception, not the rule, and any such departure must be grounded on cogent reasons."

Line 6 (Refusal to direct OCIA – Para 380-382):
"We are afraid that for this reason alone we would not be able to accept the contention of the petitioner that a separate body must be constituted... either a new legislation would have to be enacted or amendments to an existing one would have to be carried out... This can, at best, be conveyed as a suggestion to the respondent no.1 and cannot assume the nature of a mandate."

Line 7 (Fundamental principles of the Victim Protection Plan – Para 362.a):
"Non-criminalisation: Victims shall not, at any stage, be treated as criminals or subjected to measures associated with criminal liability. All actors shall at all times accord them the status of a crime victim."

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a petitioner seeking rehabilitation for trafficking victims: File a writ petition under Article 32 or Article 226. Cite this judgment to establish the right to rehabilitation under Articles 21 and 23. Demand the implementation of the Victim Protection Plan. If the State has not constituted AHTUs with the prescribed composition or has not notified recognised welfare institutions, seek directions for compliance. For individual victims, use the guidelines to challenge arbitrary detention in protective homes (without consent) and to demand vocational training, mental health care, and follow‑up after release.

For a State Government defending a petition on trafficking: Acknowledge the binding nature of the Victim Protection Plan. Demonstrate compliance by producing rules notified under Section 23 ITPA, lists of social workers, functioning AHTUs, and Shakti Sadans meeting the prescribed standards. If there are deficiencies, seek time to rectify them. Argue that the plan is resource‑intensive and that the Court may grant reasonable time for full implementation, but do not refuse compliance.

For a magistrate hearing a Section 17 case: Follow the threshold inquiry procedure strictly. Do not automatically send every rescued woman to a protective home. Record the victim’s statement on voluntariness. Order a social worker’s report. If the victim is a voluntary adult sex worker and no safety risk is identified, release her. If the victim consents to long‑term care, place her in a protective home only after preparing an individualised care plan. If the victim does not consent, do not order detention except in exceptional circumstances (record cogent reasons). Ensure that legal representation is provided.

For a lawyer representing a rescued victim: Immediately upon production before the magistrate, assert the victim’s right to legal representation under Paragraph 362(d)(ix). Inform the magistrate of the requirement of a threshold inquiry and the primacy of the victim’s consent. If the victim is a voluntary adult sex worker and wishes to be released, argue that continued detention would violate her right to dignity under Article 21. If the victim has been trafficked but does not wish to return to her family or to be detained, present her wishes to the magistrate. If the magistrate orders detention without consent and without recording exceptional circumstances, appeal under Section 17(6) ITPA.

For a police officer or AHTU member: Familiarise yourself with the entire Victim Protection Plan. During rescue, ensure that no victim is abused, arrested, or separated from her children. Carry a female police officer and an NGO social worker. Do not register offences under Sections 7, 8 or 20 ITPA against rescued persons. Produce the victim before the magistrate on the same day. If production is not possible, transfer to a protective home; never keep the victim overnight at the police station.

For a protective home administrator: Implement the individualised care plan for each resident. Provide medical, psychological, de‑addiction, educational and vocational services as prescribed. Allow the resident to participate in decisions (e.g., choice of vocational training). Maintain a confidential case file. Facilitate the victims’ committee. Submit to quarterly social audits by the District Magistrate’s committee. If the resident wishes to leave after 90 days (when detention was without consent), facilitate her application to the magistrate.

For a legislature or law reform body: Consider the Court’s recommendations to amend Sections 7, 8 and 20 ITPA to exclude victims of trafficking. Re‑examine the detention‑based model of protective homes and consider alternative, community‑based rehabilitation options. Remove the ‘means’ element for child victims under Section 143 BNS. Enact a comprehensive trafficking legislation covering all forms of exploitation (labour, organ removal, etc.) and establishing a national coordination mechanism. Address cyber‑enabled human trafficking through specific provisions and training.