Child Trafficking, Victim Testimony & Constitutional Duty: Supreme Court’s Reorientation of Criminal Justice
Introduction: A Crime That Attacks the Constitution Itself
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged an uncomfortable truth: child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation are not aberrations but entrenched organised crimes that continue to thrive despite an elaborate statutory framework.
By laying down guidelines for appreciation of evidence in child trafficking cases, the Court has attempted to correct long-standing judicial biases that often turn victims into suspects and silence the most vulnerable witnesses.
Nature of the Crime: Why Child Trafficking Is Structurally Different
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi recognised that child trafficking is:
-
Organised
-
Layered
-
Diffused across verticals (recruitment, transport, harbouring, exploitation)
-
Deliberately opaque
Unlike conventional crimes, trafficking networks operate through apparently disconnected actors, making:
-
Detection difficult
-
Prosecution fragmented
-
Victim testimony vulnerable to attack
Constitutional Foundation: State’s Duty to Protect Children
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
-
Article 21 – Right to life with dignity
-
Article 23 – Prohibition of trafficking in human beings
-
Article 39(e) & (f) – Protection of children from abuse and exploitation
-
Article 15(3) – Special protection for women and children
The Court described the case as exposing the “moral and material abandonment” of a child whom the State is constitutionally obliged to protect.
📌 GS-II Line
Child trafficking is not merely a crime against an individual; it is a failure of constitutional governance.
Statutory Framework: Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
The convictions were upheld under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, which:
-
Criminalises trafficking, brothel-keeping, and exploitation
-
Treats victims as persons in need of care, not offenders
However, enforcement failures and evidentiary scepticism have historically weakened its impact.
Key Judicial Clarifications on Evidence (Very Important for UPSC)
1. Victim Is NOT an Accomplice
The Court categorically held:
-
A trafficked child cannot be treated as an accomplice
-
Her testimony is akin to that of an injured witness
📌 Legal Principle
Where harm is intrinsic to the offence, the victim’s evidence carries enhanced credibility.
2. Sole Testimony Can Sustain Conviction
The judgment reaffirmed:
-
Corroboration is not a rule of law
-
If testimony is credible and convincing, it is sufficient
Minor inconsistencies:
-
Do not erode credibility
-
Are natural given trauma and time lapse
3. Delay or Lack of Protest ≠ Consent
Justice Bagchi rejected the notion that:
-
Failure to immediately protest
-
Compliance with traffickers’ “innocuous” instructions
…can be interpreted as consent or improbability.
Understanding Trauma & Memory: A Shift in Judicial Mindset
The Court recognised that:
-
Trafficking victims often cannot narrate events linearly
-
Crime verticals are diffused and disjointed
-
Expecting precision is unrealistic and unjust
This aligns Indian jurisprudence with trauma-informed justice.
Socio-Economic Vulnerability: A Crucial Recognition
The Bench emphasised that courts must consider:
-
Poverty
-
Social marginalisation
-
Cultural disadvantage
-
Age and power imbalance
📌 GS-IV Ready Line
Formal equality in procedure can produce substantive injustice when vulnerability is ignored.
Why This Judgment Is a Course Correction
Historically, courts have:
-
Discarded testimony as “against human conduct”
-
Over-emphasised contradictions
-
Expected resistance narratives from victims
This judgment reverses that burden, placing responsibility on:
-
The State
-
Investigating agencies
-
Courts themselves
Comparative & International Context
The ruling aligns with:
-
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
-
Palermo Protocol on Human Trafficking
-
Global shift towards victim-centric prosecution
Implications for Criminal Justice System
-
Higher conviction sustainability in trafficking cases
-
Reduced scope for defence-led victim intimidation
-
Strengthening of child-friendly courts
-
Greater accountability of enforcement agencies
Ethical Dimension (GS-IV)
Ethical Conflict
-
Legal formalism vs human dignity
-
Proof beyond reasonable doubt vs trauma reality
Ethical Resolution by Court
-
Sensitivity does not dilute justice
-
Empathy strengthens legitimacy
📌 Quote-Ready Line:
Justice is not blind to suffering; it is blind to prejudice.
Conclusion: From Suspicion to Sensitivity
By recognising trafficked children as injured constitutional subjects, not unreliable narrators, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that:
The credibility of justice lies in how it treats those with the least power to speak.
This judgment is a milestone in child-centric constitutionalism, reminding the State that laws protect only when courts interpret them with realism, empathy, and constitutional morality.
UPSC FINAL TAKEAWAY
-
Child trafficking = organised crime + constitutional violation
-
Victim testimony = primary evidence, not suspect narrative
-
Judicial sensitivity = requirement, not discretion
No comments:
Post a Comment