The Bombay High Court recently delivered an important judgment regarding the protective custody of adult survivors of trafficking, reinforcing constitutional principles of liberty and autonomy.
📜 Background of the Issue
Under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (ITPA), courts may place rescued individuals in protective homes for rehabilitation.
However, a recurring legal question has been:
Can an adult trafficking survivor be kept in protective custody against her will?
🏛️ Court’s Key Observations
The Bombay High Court clarified that:
1️⃣ Adult Autonomy Must Be Respected
If a person is a major (above 18 years) and expresses the desire to leave protective custody, continued detention would violate:
-
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
-
Article 19(1)(d) – Freedom of Movement
The Court emphasized that protective custody cannot become illegal confinement.
2️⃣ Distinction Between Protection and Detention
Protective custody is meant for:
-
Rehabilitation
-
Safety from traffickers
-
Temporary shelter
It must not be:
-
Punitive
-
Indefinite
-
Against informed consent
3️⃣ Voluntary Rehabilitation
The Court underlined that rehabilitation must be consent-based for adults. State authorities cannot override an adult’s decision unless there is clear evidence of coercion or incapacity.
⚖️ Legal Principles Involved
The judgment balances:
-
Protection of trafficking victims
-
Individual autonomy
-
State responsibility
-
Constitutional liberties
It reiterates that adult individuals cannot be treated as minors under protective frameworks.
🌍 Broader Context
Human trafficking remains a serious issue in India. Laws such as ITPA and proposed anti-trafficking bills aim to:
-
Prevent exploitation
-
Rescue victims
-
Provide rehabilitation
However, courts ensure these mechanisms comply with constitutional safeguards.
📚 Importance for Competitive Exams
Highly relevant for:
-
Indian Polity (Fundamental Rights)
-
Judiciary & Judicial Review
-
Social Justice
-
Women & Child Protection Laws
-
Current Affairs
Possible questions:
-
Discuss the constitutional safeguards for trafficking survivors.
-
Differentiate between protective custody and illegal detention.
-
Analyze the role of judiciary in protecting personal liberty.
🏁 Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces a core democratic principle: protection cannot override personal liberty when the individual is an adult capable of informed decision-making. While the State has a duty to safeguard trafficking survivors, it must do so without infringing fundamental rights.
For Vashishth Academy students, this case is a strong example of how courts balance social welfare legislation with constitutional freedoms.