Immoral Traffic Prevention Act | Major Victim Can't Be Detained In Protective Home Only For Lack Of Family: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court while observing that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is not meant to punish victims of sexual exploitation, ordered the release of a woman who was rescued during a police raid and was sent into the custody of a protection home on the ground that she has not source of income, nor family and thus she may again indulge in 'immoral' activities.Single-judge...
The Bombay High Court while observing that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is not meant to punish victims of sexual exploitation, ordered the release of a woman who was rescued during a police raid and was sent into the custody of a protection home on the ground that she has not source of income, nor family and thus she may again indulge in 'immoral' activities.
Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar quashed the order of a Magistrate, who sent the victim woman in a protective home's custody for a period of one year after noting that her parents had separated and she had no relative to look after her and no source of income. The judge noted that the said Magistrate ordered release of four other victims, rescued along with the present one, on the ground that their relatives had agreed to look after them and ensure that they do not return to the immoral activities.
The judge further noted that the Magistrate while ordering the present victim's custody in protection home for a year, also did not record if she was suffering from any sexually transmitted diseases and the release of the victim posed threat to public safety on the said count.
"The justifiability of the aforesaid view is required to be examined in the light of the nature and object of the PITA 1956 as it was not meant to punish a victim of the sexual exploitation. In the absence of material to show that the role attributed to the victim would fall within the dragnet of any of the penal provisions, the victim cannot be subjected to unreasonable restrictions on the basis of a bald assertion that the victim may again indulge in immoral acts," Justice Jamadar held.
The controversy, in the instant case, Justice Jamadar said, boiled down to the question as to whether the victim who is a major, could be detained against her wish for the only reason that she has no family of her own. The judge said that the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court - both approached the issue from a wrong perspective and got swayed by the absence of a relative to whom the custody of victim could be entrusted.
"In the view of this Court, the necessity of detention of victim in a protective home ought to have been determined on the touchstone of the constitutional rights of personal liberty and fundamental freedom. In the absence of material which would justify the restriction on personal liberty and fundamental freedom, in the nature of detention of the victim, the Magistrate could not have directed the detention of victim for the reason that there was nobody to take her care, who was a major, and, thus, there were chances of her again indulging in commercial sex work, if she was released without providing her necessary counselling and training. The mere fact that Victim was alone, by itself, could not have been a justifiable ground to detain her in a protective home," the judge underlined.
Therefore, the judge ordered her forthwith release after noting that there was no material to show that she posed threat to the society.
Appearance:
Advocates Abhijeet Jangale and Nikita Bordepatil appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor RS Tendulkar represented the State.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 4726 of 2025)