Trafficking Survivors Have a Fundamental Right to Rehabilitation: Supreme Court Frames Binding Victim Protection Plan
Case Name: Prajwala v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 609
Date of Judgment/Order: May 29, 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Held: The Supreme Court held that victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation have a fundamental right to rehabilitation flowing from Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. The Court held that rescue alone is not enough; the State must ensure a victim-centric framework covering pre-rescue, rescue, post-rescue care, rehabilitation, repatriation, reintegration, prosecution support, prevention and training. The Court further held that the existing legal and institutional framework suffers from serious gaps because there is no comprehensive, binding Victim Protection Plan, and this lacuna risks treating trafficked persons as offenders rather than rights-bearing victims. The Court emphasised that voluntary adult sex workers must not be mechanically conflated with trafficked victims, and that consent, dignity, agency and non-criminalisation must guide State action.
Summary: The litigation began with Prajwala’s 2004 writ petition highlighting the absence of a robust victim protection framework for women and children trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation. Earlier, the Union of India had informed the Court that it would work towards a comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation and an organised crime investigation agency. However, years later, no comprehensive law or Victim Protection Plan had been brought into force, and the Union took the position that the existing framework under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Juvenile Justice Act, the POCSO Act, NIA empowerment, AHTUs, Mission Shakti and Shakti Sadans was sufficient. The Supreme Court disagreed in part, holding that the existing framework still lacked a clear, uniform and binding protocol for handling victims during and after rescue. The Court examined the Palermo Protocol, Article 23, ITPA, BNS, child-protection laws, AHTUs, NALSA schemes and rehabilitation measures, and concluded that a victim protection plan was necessary to secure the dignity, autonomy, safety and rehabilitation of survivors of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation.
Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the Miscellaneous Application by issuing a detailed and binding Victim Protection Plan under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution. The Plan covers pre-rescue, rescue, post-rescue, rehabilitation, repatriation/reintegration, prosecution and trial, prevention and training, and applications under Section 19 of the ITPA. The Court declined to issue a mandamus for creation of a separate Organised Crime Investigation Agency, holding that although the proposed functions are scattered across existing institutions, there is no such gap requiring a compulsory direction; however, the Union may establish such a body in future if considered necessary. The Court directed the Union to ensure compliance with the additional directions within three months, ordered the matter to be listed again in September 2026 for reporting compliance, and directed the Registry to send the judgment to all High Courts, the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development.