Supreme Court Expresses Shock At Dismissal Of 2 Sweepers In Varanasi Corporation For Raising Child Trafficking Issue; Orders Reinstatement

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong disapproval after learning that the services of a couple employed as sweepers had been terminated by a contractor solely because they had approached the Court challenging bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court to persons accused of child trafficking.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan is currently hearing a batch of criminal appeals filed by the kin of children trafficked by an intra-state trafficking network. During the December 2 hearing, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Aparna Bhat informed the Court that Pinki and her husband, both engaged as sweepers with the Dashashwamedh Ward of the Varanasi Municipal Corporation through a contractor, had been abruptly removed from service. The couple had approached the Supreme Court after their one-year-old child was allegedly kidnapped in 2023, challenging the bail granted to the accused by the High Court.

It may be recalled that, during earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had pulled up the State authorities for failing to challenge the bail orders despite the seriousness of the allegations. In this context, the Bench observed that the couple's termination appeared to be linked to official displeasure over their decision to pursue the matter before the Court.

"At this stage, Ms. Bhat, the learned Amicus brought to our notice something very disheartening and shocking. We were informed that the services of Pinki, the petitioner in the main matter, and her husband serving as Sweepers with Dashashwamedh Ward of Varanisi Municipal Corporation through a Contractor, have been terminated. Since this Court has taken serious cognizance in so far as the issue of child trafficking is concerned, the concerned Authority seems to have got agitated and terminated the services of the husband and wife as Sweepers."

On hearing this, the Court stated that it is disheartened to hear the news and directed Advocate Garvesh Kabra (for State of Uttar Pradesh) that the couple be reinstated in the services immediately on December 2 by 12 pm.

"Mr. Garvesh Kabra, the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the State of U.P. We made ourselves very clear that by 12 pm, the husband and wife should be reinstated in service on the same terms and conditions on which they were earlier working, failing which we shall place the Authority concerned responsible for terminating their services under suspension. By end of the day today, we request the learned counsel to inform us whether the husband and wife have been reinstated in services or not."

The bench was hearing criminal appeals filed against the orders of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to accused persons in the child trafficking cases. In April, the bench cancelled bail granted to 13 such accused persons by the Allahabad High Court. While it called the approach of the High Court 'callous for exercising discretion in granting bail,' it also questioned why the Uttar Pradesh Government did not seek cancellation of the bail orders.

The Court had passed some general directions, such as for the expedited hearing of such cases, and also sought data from the High Courts on the pending trials in child trafficking matters. These cases pertain to child trafficking rackets involving the kidnapping and selling of minor children. They were granted bail by the Allahabad High Court, considering that the accused persons were not named in the FIR; the name was disclosed by a co-accused, the victims were not recovered from their custody and parity with the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail.

While granting bail, the High Court imposed bail conditions that they would continue to appear before the trial court and not tamper with evidence or pressurise witnesses. However, most of them absconded. Subsequent to a petition filed before the Supreme Court, some of them were re-arrested, and their bail orders were cancelled.

The Court had also heard about the compliance with the April 15 directions. It had directed the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders as regards awarding compensation to the victims under the provisions of BNSS, 2023 including under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bhai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh managed by the Child Welfare Committee.

On this, it directed: "We direct that wherever the trials have been completed and no compensation orders have been passed, the Court concerned shall proceed to pass appropriate orders of compensation."

It had directed all the State Governments across the country to look into the Report of Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD) dated 12-4-2023, more particularly, the recommendation as reproduced in Para 34 of the Judgment.

In regard to this, it requested Additional Solicitor General, Archana Pathak Dave(for NCT Delhi), to provide the necessary information in this regard by the next date of hearing.

Case Details: PINKI v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.|MA 729/2025 in Crl.A. No. 1927/2025

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat for Appellants and Advocate Garvesh Kabra for State of Uttar Pradesh