Trafficking Victim Can Be Repatriated Based On 'No Objection' By Trial Court, Magistrate's Order Not Needed: Bombay High Court
A person trafficked to India can be repatriated to his or her original country based on a 'No Objection' granted by the respective trial court dealing with the said trafficking case, the Bombay High Court held on Wednesday (April 15), while ordering immediate repatriation of a Bangladeshi woman.
A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata said the court that has passed orders granting custody of the victim to the shelter homes, can pass repatriation orders in cases of adult victims, and that the said victims need not obtain any order from a Magistrate.
The judges even referred to section 17 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act (ITA), while referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which mandates an order from a Magistrate Court (in case of adults) or a Child Welfare Committee (CWC), in case a victim is a minor, and said that no law mandates an order to be obtained from a Magistrate for repatriation.
"A plain reading of the Section 17 of ITA makes it clear that, it does not contemplate or require any order permitting repatriation of a victim to her country of origin. In our view, the explanation... that the concerned Court hearing the matter should grant a 'No Objection' to the repatriation of the victim and that such an endorsement would suffice for the purposes of the Annexure 5 appears to be both pragmatic and consistent with the intent of the SOP," the judges held.
The bench further made it clear, "In our considered view, in the present case, the Judge of the Special Court, who has recorded the statement of the victim, would be the appropriate authority to record such 'No Objection' and permit the release of the victim for repatriation to her home country. In other cases, it would be the Court which has granted custody of the victim to the rescue foundation or such person as provided under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, that shall grant such 'No Objection' for repatriation."
The bench was hearing a plea filed by Rescue Foundation, an NGO, through advocate Ashley Cusher, who brought the case of a woman from Bangladesh, who was a victim of human trafficking and was still languishing in a shelter home due to a delay on the part of a special court to record her statement in the trafficking case.
The judges noted that the woman in question was in a dire financial problem due to a loan taken by her husband, and was promised of a job in a parlour in India in return for a handsome remuneration. She accepted the job offer and travelled to India without any documents, with the assistance of an agent who helped her cross the border to enter India. She along with six other girls were rescued by the police.
The bench noted that despite a clear order passed on October 8, 2025, to the special court to record the woman's testimony, so that she could be sent back to her country, the same was not done till March 11, when the matter was heard. The bench had then sought an explanation over the delay in recording her testimony.
On a subsequent date, the judges were informed that the statements of the victim were recorded. However, to repatriate, she was asked by the special court to approach a Magistrate Court, which too sent her back to the special court. In such state of affairs, the victim moved the High Court through the NGO.
However, the bench has ordered her 'immediate' repatriation after noting that the same has been inordinately delayed by over six months and thus, the judges deemed it appropriate to exercise the HC's writ jurisdiction instead of relegating the victim to the Special Court.
"Accordingly, the victim, a Bangladeshi national presently under the care and protection of the Petitioner NGO, shall be repatriated to her country of origin forthwith, subject to furnishing the usual undertakings as may be required to ensure her appearance, as and when required, through video-conferencing in the ongoing case," the bench ordered.
With these observations, the bench disposed of the plea.
Appearance:
Advocates Ashley Cusher, Priyanka Tiwari and Keerti Gupta appeared for the Petitioner.
Advocate Manisha Jagtap represented Union of India.
Additional Public Prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik represented the State.
Case Title: Rescue Foundation vs Union of India (Writ Petition 3414 of 2025)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 191