Telangana HC Affirms State’s Power to Retain Adult Trafficking Survivors in State Homes for Protection

The Telangana High Court held that the continued placement of two survivors of a 2018 human trafficking rescue in the State Home at Madhura Nagar did not amount to illegal detention and that the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus was not available to the petitioner who sought their release.

The Court ruled that custody pursuant to orders of the Child Welfare Committee and the District Welfare Officer under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is lawful where it is demonstrably in the best interest of the survivors and necessary to protect them from re-victimisation and interference with ongoing criminal proceedings.

The petition was dismissed on grounds of want of locus standi, the availability of statutory remedies under the JJ Act, and the real risk to the safety and rehabilitation of the detenues if released without structured safeguards.

The matter was heard and the order pronounced by a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar on October 15, 2025.

The Court’s most pointed observation is that “detention becomes ‘illegal’ where it is made contrary to law or in the absence of any law,” and that where placement in a State Home is made pursuant to orders of the Child Welfare Committee within the scheme of the JJ Act, the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus will not lie.

The Bench emphasised that a person invoking habeas corpus as a next friend must demonstrate unimpeachable bona fides and that the writ cannot be used to circumvent the statutory appellate and revisionary remedies provided under the juvenile justice framework.

In arriving at its conclusion, the Court relied on a line of authority that delineates the narrow ambit of habeas corpus where detention is under statutory orders and where the JJ Act provides dedicated remedies.

The judgment refers to precedents holding that habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge lawful custodial orders passed by statutory authorities, including Rachna v. State of U.P., Omkar v. State of U.P., and Shifa @ Mannu @ Shifa Malik v. State of U.P. The Bench reiterated principles from Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha that custody pursuant to competent court or statutory orders is not ipso facto illegal.

It also invoked the test of bona fides for a next friend from K. v. State of Kerala and Ram Kumar v. District Magistrate, Delhi, and noted authorities that require caution against attempts to deflect judicial process as in Union of India v. Paul Manickam. The Court placed the matter in statutory context by citing sections 37(1)(c), 101 and 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act and procedural safeguards under the Model Rules such as Rule 79(5).

It also discussed constitutional and policy authorities on State protection and rehabilitation including Girish Kumar v. State of U.P. and observations in Budhadev Karmaskar on rehabilitation frameworks, while distinguishing peripheral decisions like Shafin Jahan and the recent M.S. Patter decision on Beggars Homes as not determinative for the facts at hand.

The factual matrix set out in the judgment is succinct and central to the Court’s reasoning.

Two women, Kamsani Purna and Kamsani Ammulu, were rescued by Yadagirigutta Police on August 17, 2018 during an anti-trafficking operation and placed initially under the care of the Child Welfare Committee, Nalgonda. Their case was transferred to the CWC, Ranga Reddy, and they were referred to Prajwala for rehabilitation before being transferred to the State Home, Madhura Nagar, pursuant to subsequent CWC orders reviewed on February 13, 2024 and May 22, 2024.

Both detenues are now 19 years old and have sought release by written representation dated August 21, 2025. The petitioner, who was herself part of the rescued cohort and who had been released earlier following a separate order of this Court, claimed to be a close friend and sought habeas corpus relief on behalf of the two survivors.

The State produced material indicating unresolved and unreliable family linkages, DNA results disproving certain biological relationships, involvement of alleged relatives in prostitution, medical history including mental health interventions, and the fact that both detenues are material witnesses in pending trafficking and POCSO trials. The Court treated these factual threads as making the question of release a matter of assessing real risk rather than a simple exercise in asserting majority.

The Court examined the petitioner’s locus standi and bona fides in detail and found them wanting. The writ affidavit did not demonstrate that the petitioner was a recognised next friend with capacity to secure the long term rehabilitation of the detenues. Documents placed on record showed that the petitioner had earlier declined an educational placement for logistical reasons, and the detenues’ own representations to authorities named biological relatives rather than the petitioner.

Given these lacunae and the presence of an extant statutory scheme offering appeal and revision under the JJ Act, the Bench concluded that habeas corpus was unsuitable where the detention is under lawful orders intended for protection and where release without safeguards would expose survivors to high risk of re-exploitation and interference with criminal proceedings.

Although the Court dismissed the petition, it expressly set out a structured approach for State action before any release is considered. The Bench recommended mental health evaluations, risk assessments, the formulation of a State Home exit plan, availability of aftercare including housing, vocational training and monetary support, legal protection such as restraining orders where necessary, and a monitoring or temporary guardianship mechanism.

The judgment underscores the State’s dual duty to respect individual autonomy while fulfilling constitutional and statutory obligations to protect victims of trafficking and to ensure their meaningful rehabilitation.

Case Title: Kamsani Anjali v. State of Telangana and Others

Date of Judgment: October 15, 2025

Bench: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar