Trafficking Or Voluntary Sex Work? Supreme Court Asks National Judicial Academy To Frame Guidelines For Magistrates Under Section 17 ITPA

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the order on October 13, 2026/

It was the first listing of the matter after the Court delivered its final judgment on May 29, 2026, and the hearing was meant to give the Bench "a fair idea, how the Union of India and other stakeholders have proceeded to comply with various directions issued by us in the main judgment."

The Bench also directed all States and Union Territories to notify Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs) as police stations. It found that the Union's own status note showed that the four additional directions issued in the judgment had not been fully complied with.

Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for the petitioner. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Union of India. Bhat submitted that guidelines were needed for the "threshold inquiry" to be conducted by the Magistrate under Section 17 of the ITPA.

The Court recalled that its "Victim Protection Plan" contained detailed directions on how the inquiry was to be conducted when rescued adults, that is, those above 18 years of age, are produced before the Magistrate. The purpose of the inquiry, it explained, is to "identify voluntary sex workers and the manner in which their release/rehabilitation must be proceeded with." The Bench said, "In other words, the need for an additional/parallel judicial determination to identify voluntary sex workers, by the Magistrate, within the framework of Section 17 ITPA, was emphasized by us. The rationale behind the need for such an inquiry is provided under paragraphs 330-356 of our judgment."

The Court then listed the factors that the Magistrate must weigh. According to the order, the determination considers, "…the consent of the rescued victim and her views on whether she wishes to be placed under long-term safe custody, her statement about the voluntary/non-voluntary nature of her work, the social worker's assessment of said voluntariness, whether the victim's position is influenced by any threats of coercion/undue influence/force, and whether there are any safety concerns placing the victim at real or immediate risk of danger/re-trafficking upon release, amongst others."

The Bench made it clear that the Magistrate cannot skip the inquiry because the rescued woman says she is working voluntarily, "This threshold inquiry as regards the voluntary nature of the work of the rescued victim is triggered notwithstanding the opinion expressed by the rescued victim that her work is voluntary in nature. 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."

Bhat submitted that the process "needs to be articulated clearly" and that Magistrates across the country must be trained "to implement our directions both in letter and spirit". According to her, guidelines and training would ensure that "the determination process is uniform across the country."

Accepting this, the Court said, "To that aim, we request the National Judicial Academy to prepare a comprehensive protocol/guidelines to enable the Magistrates to conduct this inquiry. The Petitioner may provide assistance to the academy in the preparation of such protocol."

The petitioner also urged that AHTUs be given the status of police stations "at the earliest", as directed in paragraph 362 b(iii) of the judgment of May 29, 2026.

The Court directed "all the State/UT Governments in their respective Home Departments to give effect to this direction at the earliest by issuing an appropriate notification, in accordance with law." It added that the Union "shall also take up this issue at the earliest with all the States/UTs and see to it that appropriate notifications are issued."

ASG Bhati placed on record a status note on what had been done since the judgment, dealing in particular with the additional directions issued under paragraph 456. The Bench observed that "a plain reading of the status note furnished by the learned A.S.G. reveals that the four additional directions issued by us have not been fully complied with by all the States/UTs, as on date."

The Court reminded the States and UTs that the following four steps "are absolutely necessary for the ground-level implementation of the 'Victim Protection Plan'": "(i) notifying 'recognized welfare institutions/organisations' in accordance with the explanation to Section 15(6A) ITPA and for the purpose of Section 17A ITPA, (ii) preparation of a State/UT-wide list of social welfare workers eligible to form a part of the non-official advisory board under Section 13(3)(b) ITPA and the panel maintained by the Magistrate under Section 17(5) ITPA, (iii) designation of a Police Nodal Officer (PNO), and (iv) designation of a Government Nodal Officer (GNO)…"

The Union of India was directed to ensure that these four directions are fully complied with by all States and UTs by the next date of hearing.

Bhat handed up a compliance table identifying every stakeholder involved in implementing the Victim Protection Plan. They include State Governments, High Courts, Magistrates, AHTUs, rescue teams, NGOs, protective homes, District Legal Services Authorities, police, Child Welfare Committees, medical and mental health professionals and the Crime Records Bureau. For each stakeholder, the table sets out the roles and duties assigned under the Plan, along with the corresponding paragraphs of the judgment.

The Bench described this as "a very commendable exercise" that "will go a long way in monitoring the compliance of our directions." It took the compliance table and the Union's status note on record. It also directed the Union to gather information from every stakeholder on "in what manner each of the directions have been complied with and what has been done so far for meaningful implementation of the plan".

In a significant passage, the Bench reflected on what happens to the Court's guidelines after a judgment is delivered, "Time and again, we have observed that, although this Court painstakingly issues a slew of directions in the form of guidelines or sets up a framework to ensure that the fundamental rights of citizens are safeguarded and enforced in reality, yet once these directions are committed to the paper in the form of a judgment, the matter marks its abrupt end. This Court, more often than not, has no means of knowing whether the frameworks, guidelines or plans are making any measurable differences in people's lives, or what hindrances stand in the way. The same anxiety grips us here."

It added that it "cannot tangibly ascertain" whether the Victim Protection Plan "is having the desired impact or faltering in its implementation". It therefore asked both sides to suggest "concrete ways and methods that we can adopt to track the real implementation, progress and impact of the 'Victim Protection Plan'."

Background

In its order, the Bench described the main judgment as having dealt with "a very delicate, rather a very important and sensitive issue relating to the human trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation." In that judgment, it had laid down the Victim Protection Plan in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. It had also dealt in detail with the prayer for constituting an Organized Crime Investigation Agency (OCIA), and at paragraphs 387 to 424 had made recommendations for the Union's "serious consideration".

The Court directed the Union of India to file a fresh status report by the next date. The petitioner have also been directed to update the Court on the National Judicial Academy's progress in preparing the protocol for Magistrates.

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