Why in the News
The Supreme Court, while upholding a conviction under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, described child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation as a “deeply disturbing reality” in India.Â
Introduction
Child trafficking in India operates through organised, layered networks involving recruitment, transportation, harbouring, and exploitation. Despite statutory safeguards, judicial approaches have often been inconsistent in appreciating the lived realities of trafficked minors. The present judgment marks a reaffirmation of victim-centric adjudication, recognising the socio-economic vulnerability of trafficked children and the need for heightened judicial sensitivity while recording and assessing their evidence.
What is child trafficking?
What are the most common forms of child trafficking?Vulnerable children may be exposed to many different forms of exploitation, including:
|
Judicial Recognition of Child Trafficking as Organised Crime
- Organised criminal networks: Operate through complex and layered structures across recruitment, transport, harbouring, and exploitation.
- Diffused criminal processes: Fragmented operations make it difficult for victims to narrate events with precision or linear clarity.
- Systemic deception: Victims are often misled, coerced, or psychologically conditioned, undermining expectations of consistent testimony.
Evidentiary Value of a Trafficked Child’s Testimony
- Sole testimony sufficiency: Conviction can rest entirely on the testimony of the victim if it is credible and convincing.
- Minor inconsistencies: Cannot be grounds for disbelieving a trafficked child’s evidence.
- Injured witness principle: Testimony of a trafficked minor carries the same evidentiary weight as that of an injured witness.
Judicial Sensitivity in Recording Evidence
- Secondary victimisation: Courts must avoid processes that re-traumatise victims during trial.
- Sensitive appreciation: Judicial assessment must account for trauma, fear, confinement, and prolonged exploitation.
- Prompt protest fallacy: Victims should not be faulted for failure to immediately resist or report exploitation.
Recognition of Socio-Economic and Cultural Vulnerability
- Marginalised backgrounds: Courts must consider inherent socio-economic and cultural vulnerability of trafficked minors.
- Structural disadvantage: Poverty, social backwardness, and gendered exploitation heighten susceptibility to trafficking.
- Constitutional obligation: The State bears a duty to protect children from moral and material abandonment.
Rejection of Stereotypical Reasoning in Criminal Trials
- Improbability arguments: Courts must not discard testimony as “against ordinary human conduct”.
- Contextual realism: Judicial reasoning must reflect the lived realities of trafficked victims rather than abstract behavioural norms.
- Credibility assessment: Must be grounded in circumstances of confinement, coercion, and power asymmetry.
Statutory and Constitutional Anchoring of the Judgment
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act: Upholds convictions based on victim testimony.
- Article 21: Reinforces protection of dignity and bodily integrity.
- Child protection jurisprudence: Aligns with constitutional morality and substantive justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces a shift from procedural formalism to substantive justice in child trafficking cases. By recognising trafficked children as injured witnesses and accounting for their socio-economic vulnerability and trauma, the judgment aligns criminal adjudication with constitutional morality under Articles 21 and 23. It strengthens victim-centric justice and reaffirms the judiciary’s role in protecting vulnerable sections from secondary victimisation.
Measures Taken to Prohibit Child TraffickingLegal Measures
Institutional and Administrative Measures
Judicial Interventions
Time-Bound Justice: Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
|
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2023] Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach. Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer.
Linkage: The Supreme Court explicitly recognizes special evidentiary treatment for trafficked children based on socio-economic and cultural vulnerability. Hence, it constitutionally justified differential protection rather than formal equality.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

