New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a comprehensive victim protection plan, mandated systemic reforms and clarified that voluntary adult sex workers cannot be rescued against their will, affirming their constitutional right to dignity and autonomy under Article 21.
It said a voluntary sex worker cannot be rescued, detained or rehabilitated without informed consent or against their will.
In its judgement delivered on Friday in the Prajwala case, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed the Union and states to establish safehouses, medical and psychological care facilities, vocational training programmes and a national database to track trafficking cases and survivors.
The judgement also requires minimum standards for protective homes and Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs). Importantly, as it emphasised that victim consent must be central to all processes such as rehabilitative measures, counselling, shelter placements, especially in cases involving adult survivors.
Crucially, the court drew a distinction between sex workers who take up the work due to financial strains and those who are coerced into the trade.
Background
The case originated in 2004, when the Hyderabad-based Non-Governmental Organisation Prajwala filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting systemic failures in tackling sex trafficking. Over the years, the court issued interim directions, including orders for rehabilitation schemes and legislative drafting.
In 2015, the Union of India assured the court that it would establish an Organised Crime Investigative Agency (OCIA) and draft comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation. However, repeated delays and lapses in implementation led Prajwala to file further applications, culminating in the 2026 judgment.
The Supreme Court considered several pressing issues.
Inadequate framework: Existing laws and frameworks under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act were inadequate to address modern forms of trafficking, not only sexual but also other forms of exploitation like bonded labour or organ trafficking.
The court drew government’s attention on the radical shift of exploitation in the digital domain, asking it to address this issue and provide training on coordinating between various cyber units and the police.
Rehabilitation gaps: Survivors lacked structured support systems, leaving them vulnerable to re-trafficking and social stigma. The court said that India lacked a protocol governing rescue, rehabilitation and integration of the victims. There were no uniform standards, no guaranteed access to health care, no mechanisms to ensure safety of such victims, it said, drawing the executive’s attention to these gaps.
Rights of sex workers: The need to distinguish clearly between trafficking victims and voluntary sex workers. This distinction is crucial because rescue operations have historically blurred the line, leading to the detention of adults who willingly engage in sex work.
Also Read: Uttarakhand, Gujarat, now Assam: How the 3 states’ UCC models compare, from marriage to succession
SC judgement
The top court’s ruling was both directive and transformative.
Victim Protection Plan: The fundamental principles of the Supreme Court’s victim protection plan rest on dignity, autonomy, safety and non‑criminalisation of victims
The court insists that all interventions must be grounded in informed consent, meaning, no action in terms of rescue, medical examination, shelter placement, or rehabilitation can be imposed without the voluntary agreement of the victim.
Protection must be trauma‑informed, ensuring that procedures do not retraumatise survivors through harsh raids, intrusive questioning, or custodial treatment. The plan also mandates confidentiality, safeguarding the identity and privacy of victims at every stage. It establishes the right to legal aid, psychosocial support, and safe, non‑custodial shelter homes that meet minimum standards of care.
Autonomy of Sex Workers: For decades, enforcement under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) blurred the line between trafficking, which is a crime, and voluntary adult sex work, which is not.
The court acknowledges that many women enter sex work due to economic vulnerability. It directs police and magistrates to distinguish between economic compulsion and coercion.
The court corrects this distortion by placing consent at the centre of the legal inquiry. It holds that an adult who engages in sex work of their own consent cannot be treated as a victim. Rehabilitation must be voluntary, not imposed.
Anti‑Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs) and protective homes: the Court stresses on the minimum standards to be followed for AHTUs. These will require trained personnel, dedicated infrastructure, victim‑sensitive procedures, and functional coordination mechanisms.
National Database: The Court mandated a centralised national database and state level databases to track trafficking cases, rescued persons, accused individuals, rehabilitation progress, and inter‑state movement. This database will ensure real‑time coordination between states, police, welfare departments and courts.
Similarly, protective homes must meet nationally enforceable standards of safety, hygiene, medical care, counselling, staffing, grievance redressal, and independent monitoring.
The Supreme Court also issued some of its strongest legislative recommendations in the judgment, urging Parliament to reform India’s anti‑trafficking framework so that it aligns with International Protocols, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and emerging cyber‑enabled forms of trafficking.
The court called for a clearer stronger and internationally aligned definition of trafficking under the BNS, recommending that Parliament refocus on ITPA in terms of exploitation and not consensual adult work and strengthen cyber trafficking laws.
The court urged the Union and state governments to establish specialised training programmes for police, prosecutors, medical professionals and magistrates so that investigations and trials are conducted with sensitivity and legal accuracy.
Alfreza Ahmed is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: Can an adult be denied employment for offence committed as juvenile? Allahabad HC answers