Constitutional Rights & Witness Protection | State Authorities Cannot Victimise Litigants for Approaching Court: Supreme Court

“The concerned Authority seems to have got agitated and terminated the services... failing which we shall place the Authority concerned responsible for terminating their services under suspension”— In a seminal ruling the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, ordered the immediate reinstatement of a petitioner and her husband who were arbitrarily terminated from their employment shortly after the Court took cognizance of a child trafficking matter initiated by them.

Judicial Ultimatum Against Retaliatory Termination

In a startling development during the compliance proceedings of a child trafficking case, the Supreme Court was confronted with an instance of gross administrative retaliation. Ms. Aparna Bhat, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae, brought to the Court's notice a "disheartening and shocking" fact: the services of the Petitioner, Pinki, and her husband, who were employed as sweepers with the Dashashwamedh Ward of the Varanasi Municipal Corporation, had been abruptly terminated. The Bench observed that the concerned Authority appeared to have become "agitated" due to the Supreme Court's serious cognizance of the child trafficking issue raised by the petitioner, resulting in this vindictive action.

Taking a stern view of this attempt to stifle access to justice, the Bench issued a peremptory order to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court directed that the couple be reinstated by 12:00 PM on the very day of the hearing, on the same terms and conditions as before. The Bench explicitly warned Mr. Garvesh Kabra, counsel for the State, that failure to comply would result in the Court placing the responsible authority under immediate suspension. This directive underscores the Supreme Court's zero-tolerance policy towards state machinery victimizing whistleblowers or litigants who approach the constitutional courts for redressal.

Compliance with Trafficking Guidelines and Speedy Trials

Beyond the issue of termination, the Court reviewed the Status Report regarding its previous directions aimed at curbing child trafficking. The Bench noted with satisfaction that the judicial machinery in Varanasi had complied with the procedural timelines. Specifically, the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed the three underlying criminal cases to the Sessions Court within the stipulated two weeks. Furthermore, the Trial Court had successfully framed charges against the accused persons and issued non-bailable warrants against those absconding, ensuring that the trial of co-accused persons was not delayed.

Mandate on Education and Compensation under BNSS, 2023

The Court delved into the rehabilitation aspects of the victims, emphasizing the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Bench clarified that trafficked children must be admitted to schools in accordance with the Act to ensure their continued education. Regarding younger victims, the Court noted that upon attaining the age of five, they must be enrolled in schools, thereby securing their future development.

On the pecuniary front, the Supreme Court directed the Trial Courts to pass appropriate orders for compensation to victims under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bhai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh. The Court mandated that wherever trials have concluded without compensation orders, the concerned courts must proceed to pass such orders immediately, ensuring financial succor to the survivors of trafficking.

Administrative Inertia and The BIRD Report

Despite the progress in Varanasi, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the broader administrative response across the country. The Bench noted that several State Governments had failed to furnish information regarding the implementation of recommendations from the BIRD Report dated April 12, 2023. Consequently, the Court requested the Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, representing the Government of NCT of Delhi, to provide the necessary data.

Furthermore, the Court pulled up several High Courts—including Jharkhand, Patna, Telangana, Bombay, Chhattisgarh, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and Madhya Pradesh—for failing to furnish data regarding the status of pending trafficking trials. The Bench reiterated that these High Courts must circulate the necessary circulars to trial courts to ensure data collection is completed. The matter has been listed for further compliance hearing on January 13, 2026, with a specific direction to the Additional Solicitor General to report on whether any newborns have been trafficked from hospitals recently and the actions taken thereof.

Date of Decision: 02.12.2025