Cyber Trafficking is No Longer Fiction; It Is an Organised Crime: Supreme Court Demands Centre’s Clarity on Legal Framework for Human Trafficking

“What are those specific legislative changes... which have entirely obviated the need for a separate legislative framework akin to the Trafficking of Persons Bill?” —  Supreme Court of India, in the long-standing PIL Prajwala vs Union of India, issued a compelling set of directions to the Union Government, calling for detailed clarifications and factual data on the handling of Commercial Sexual Exploitation (CSE) and Cyber-Enabled Human Trafficking (CEHT). A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan raised fundamental questions on whether a “more robust legal framework” had been truly established through existing laws and schemes, thereby rendering the long-pending Trafficking of Persons (Protection, Care and Rehabilitation) Bill redundant.

Court Demands Centre’s Justification for Abandoning Draft Anti-Trafficking Law
“The only other noteworthy legislative development is the change that has been brought forth pursuant to the 2019 Amendment to the NIAA,” the Court observed, referring to the inclusion of human trafficking-related offences under the jurisdiction of the National Investigation Agency. However, it pressed further: “Sections 96, 98 and 99 BNS... have not been included in the Schedule to the NIAA… In other words, how and to what extent does the regime under the BNS... differ from the erstwhile regime under the IPC?”
While the Centre had claimed that existing laws—namely the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), and National Investigation Agency Act (NIAA)—sufficiently address trafficking, the Court demanded to know: “What are those specific legislative changes... which, in the opinion of the Union of India, have entirely obviated the need for a separate legislative framework akin to the Trafficking of Persons Bill?”

“Victim Protection Protocol Cannot Be Symbolic”: Need for Concrete Data on Mission Shakti
The Supreme Court underscored the urgent necessity for a comprehensive Victim Protection Protocol, especially at the pre-rescue, rescue, and rehabilitation stages. Though the Centre cited the “Mission Shakti” scheme—which includes One Stop Centres (OSCs), Shakti Sadan homes, and Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs)—as an answer, the Court demanded exact data: “The number of women who have availed temporary shelter... with special emphasis on those women who have been victims/survivors of CSE.”
The Bench also questioned whether OSCs and Shakti Sadan homes provide trauma care, mental health services, and vocational training tailored to the needs of trafficking survivors. “These special services include but would not be limited to special trauma care... detoxification support... continuous mental health support,” the Court noted.

Law Enforcement and Rehabilitation Cannot Work in Silos: Need for Coordination Protocols
“A continuum of protection, prosecution and rehabilitation, keeping the victim and her well-being at the forefront must be provided,” the Bench emphasized, insisting on detailed information regarding Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for coordination between OSCs, AHTUs, DLSA, police, and judicial bodies.
The Court asked pointedly, “Whether such protocols have been created and enforced in each State/UT? Whether advisories pertaining to the same have been issued by the Union of India through the relevant Ministries?”

“Victims Are Being Re-trafficked Under the Same System”: Protective Homes’ Mechanism Under Scrutiny
Expressing deep concern about re-trafficking, the Court questioned the mechanism under ITPA Sections 16 and 17 that are supposed to ensure physical protection of rescued victims. “Victims/survivors of such crimes are at a very high risk of being re-trafficked and re-victimized in the same system that they were rescued from,” the Court remarked.
It further sought clarification on whether Protective Homes and Corrective Institutions under Section 21 ITPA have been effectively merged into Mission Shakti or whether they function as separate statutory entities.

“Social Media, Matrimonial Apps, and Games are New Arenas of Exploitation”: Addressing Cyber-Enabled Trafficking
The Court acknowledged the evolving face of trafficking: “CEHT has created a radical shift in the exploitation landscape... traffickers exploit both regulated and unregulated platforms such as Facebook, Shaadi.com, PUBG, and Telegram.” In this light, it ordered the Centre to furnish applicable provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and explain the role of Cri-MAC (Crime Multi-Agency Centre).
It asked, “What is the specific role [Cri-MAC] plays in addressing the issue of CEHT apart from being an inter and intra-agency communication platform?”

“What Happened to the Central Advisory Committee on Trafficking?”: Court Revisits Vishal Jeet Directions
Reinvoking its landmark 1990 judgment in Vishal Jeet v. Union of India, the Court pointed to the defunct status of the Central Advisory Committee (CAC) and various State Advisory Boards set up for eradicating child prostitution. “Has the CAC... stopped functioning? If yes, then what is the reason behind these quarterly meetings coming to an end?”

“Money Trails Must Be Chased Along with Flesh Traders”: Use of PMLA Urged
The Bench invoked the Ministry of Home Affairs’ 2012 memorandum advocating parallel financial investigations: “It would be virtually impossible to establish and manage an organized HT network without creating audit trails… each business... should be scrutinized.” The Court called for clear information on how the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is being used to crack down on trafficking networks.

The Court has directed the Union of India and concerned Ministries to submit detailed reports answering all questions by May 23, 2025. The matter, rooted in a PIL filed over two decades ago by NGO Prajwala, continues to be a touchstone for legal reforms addressing one of the most insidious crimes in India.

Date of Decision: May 5, 2025