Immoral Trafficking Prevention | Supreme Court Asks NJA To Frame Guidelines For Magistrates' Inquiry About Adult Rescued Women

The Supreme Court has called for comprehensive guidelines to ensure uniformity in the conduct of a 'threshold inquiry' by Magistrates under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act), to determine whether rescued adult sex workers are engaged in sex work voluntarilly.

The requested the National Judicial Academy (NJA) to prepare a comprehensive protocol for Magistrates to conduct such inquiries. The petitioner NGO Prajwala may assist the Academy in preparing the guidelines.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said that uniform guidelines and appropriate training were necessary to ensure that Magistrates across the country implement the Court's directions on the protection, rehabilitation and reintegration of rescued adults in both letter and spirit.

The direction was issued while monitoring compliance with the Victim Protection Plan formulated by the Court in its May 29, 2026 judgment in Prajwala v. Union of India, concerning human trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation.

The Court explained that the inquiry is intended to help the Magistrate determine the appropriate course of action for the protection, rehabilitation and reintegration of the rescued adult.

Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, governs the safe custody and rehabilitation of girls rescued from brothels or removed during police action. It empowers the Magistrate to order an inquiry into the correctness of the information received and the girl's age, and, if satisfied that she is below 21 years, to direct her detention in a protective home or other suitable custody for a specified period, after giving her an opportunity to be heard. The Magistrate may seek assistance from a panel of five respectable persons, preferably including three women, and any order passed under this provision can be appealed before the Sessions Judge.

Following the submissions made by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat for the petitioner that certain guidelines pertaining to the 'threshold inquiry' which is to be conducted by the Magistrate under Section 17 ITPA, are necessary for the Magistrates across the country to ensure uniform implementation., the Court requested the “National Judicial Academy to prepare a comprehensive protocol/guideline to enable the Magistrates to conduct this inquiry.”

The Court, further, highlighted that the judicial determination of the magistrate's inquiry protocol must be guided by the following factors, such as:

a. the consent of the rescued victim and her views on whether she wishes to be placed under long-term safe custody,

b. her statement about the voluntary/nonvoluntary nature of her work, the social worker's assessment of said voluntariness,

c. whether the victim's position is influenced by any threats of coercion/undue influence/force, and

d. whether there are any safety concerns placing the victim at real or immediate risk of danger/re-trafficking upon release, amongst others.

Importantly, the Court clarified that the inquiry must be conducted even when the rescued adult states that her work is voluntary.

“In other words, the magistrate must, under all circumstances, conduct this threshold inquiry to determine the further appropriate course of action for the protection, rehabilitation and re-integration of the rescued victim who is an adult,” the Court observed.

The Court also permitted the petitioner to assist the Academy in preparing the protocol.

The matter was listed as part of the Court's ongoing monitoring of compliance with the Victim Protection Plan. The Union Government has been directed to file a fresh status report, while the petitioner has been asked to update the Court on the progress made by the National Judicial Academy in preparing the guidelines.

The matter will next be heard on December 14, 2026.

What did the Court observe in the May judgment regarding consent in threshold inquiry?

The Supreme Court, in its May 29, 2026 judgment, held that the consent and wishes of rescued victims must be a primary and governing consideration in deciding whether they should be placed in protective homes or reintegrated with their families. In paragraphs 337-349, the Court observed that although Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 does not expressly require the victim's consent to be considered, the provision implicitly recognises its importance. The Court noted that the word “may” in Section 17(4) gives the Magistrate discretion over whether to order detention, and the victim's consent must be central to exercising that discretion.

The Court emphasised that victims of trafficking are not offenders but persons whose lives, liberty and future are affected by the Magistrate's decision. It held that recognising them as victims deserving protection and rehabilitation while disregarding their choices would be indefensible. The Court categorically stated that if a victim does not consent to long-term safe custody, the Magistrate must not proceed with it. Any departure from the victim's expressed wishes must be exceptional and supported by cogent reasons.

The Court further observed that even if a Magistrate finds that a victim's family is genuine, capable of providing care and offers a suitable environment, the victim cannot automatically be sent back against her wishes. Similarly, placing a victim in a protective home without her consent could restrict her freedom of movement, disrupt her family life, undermine her privacy and impair her livelihood. Rehabilitation, the Court held, cannot be imposed coercively and must be centred on the victim's choices, wishes and individual circumstances.

In the context of the threshold inquiry, the Court explained in paragraphs 335-336 that a Magistrate must conduct an initial inquiry to identify adult sex workers who are engaged in sex work voluntarily and do not wish to be placed in long-term safe custody. This would ensure that such women are not subjected to the more intrusive inquiry contemplated under Section 17(2), which was never intended for them. In its October 13 order, the Court reiterated that the threshold inquiry must be conducted even when a rescued adult woman states that her work is voluntary, taking into account her consent, the circumstances surrounding her work and any safety concerns, including the risk of coercion or re-trafficking.