The Supreme Court has issued a landmark judgment directing that the consent of adult sex workers be the primary factor in decisions on rehabilitation, reintegration and placement in protective homes. The ruling seeks to correct the blanket approach of the ITPA under Section 17.
Key Developments
- The Court rejected the paternalistic “one‑size‑fits‑all” model that treats all rescued persons alike, irrespective of whether they were trafficked, coerced or voluntarily engaged in sex work.
- It mandated a Victim Protection Plan to be prepared for each case, with the victim’s own statement given primacy.
- A preliminary inquiry must first determine if the individual is a voluntary adult sex worker and whether she wishes long‑term protective custody.
- Magistrates may ignore the victim’s wishes only in exceptional situations where safety is at risk or consent is shown to be coerced; any deviation must be recorded in writing.
- The judgment identified three categories of persons rescued under Section 17: (i) trafficked against will, (ii) initially trafficked but now voluntary, and (iii) wholly voluntary adult sex workers.
Important Facts
The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan relied on senior‑advocate Ms. Aparna Bhat’s submission on a “Victim Protection Plan”. The Court cited the 2022 Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of W.B. case, reinforcing that voluntary sex workers are not victims of trafficking and should not face coercive rehabilitation.
According to the judgment, the state’s constitutional duty to provide rehabilitation does not empower it to impose a rehabilitative process a