World
India
The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that cases involving child trafficking should not be allowed to drag on in trial courts. In a strong order aimed at speeding up justice in such serious cases, the top court directed all High Courts across India to gather data on pending trials related to child trafficking and ensure that these trials are wrapped up within six months.
The move came as the court canceled bail granted to several accused individuals in three separate interstate child trafficking cases. A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan came down hard on how these cases have been handled, both by the high courts and by state governments.
Supreme Court Wants Speedy Trials in Child Trafficking Cases
The court said that if necessary, trials should be held on a day-to-day basis to ensure quick results.
“We direct all the high courts across the country to call for the necessary information as regards the status of the pending trials relating to child trafficking. Once each of the High Courts is able to collect the necessary data as regards the status of the trials, a circular thereafter shall be issued on its administrative side to all the concerned trial courts to complete the trials within a period of six months from the date of the circular and, if need be, by conducting the trials on a day-to-day basis,” the bench said in its order.
It also ordered the high courts to submit compliance reports to the Supreme Court once the process begins.
NHRC Study Recommendations Must Be Implemented
The top court also directed all state governments to take a serious look at the findings of a recent study on human trafficking. The study, conducted in 2023 by the Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD), was commissioned by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The court asked states to study the recommendations and take steps to implement them.
During the hearing, the court also referred to troubling data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). According to the court, “About 3.80 lakh persons were traced missing and out of them, about two-thirds were females.”
The court noted that this highlights how serious the issue of human trafficking is—especially when it comes to women and children.
Tough Stand on Hospitals in Cases of Infant Trafficking
The Supreme Court issued a stern warning to hospitals, especially when it comes to the trafficking of newborn babies.
“If any newborn infant is trafficked from any hospital, the immediate action against the hospital should be suspension of licence to run the hospital over and above other actions in accordance with law. When any lady comes to deliver her baby in any hospital, it is the responsibility of the administration of the hospital to protect the newborn infant in all respects.”
This shows the court’s clear intent to hold hospital administrations accountable in such horrifying cases.
SC Slams High Court for “Callous” Bail Orders
The bench did not hold back in criticizing the way the High Court had granted bail to the accused. It called the approach “very callous,” pointing out that the decision allowed dangerous individuals to go free and potentially avoid trial.
“Considering the serious nature of the crime and the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons we are of the view that the High Court should not have exercised its discretion in favour of the accused persons. We are sorry to say but the High Court dealt with all the bail applications in a very callous manner. The outcome of this callous approach on the part of the High Court has ultimately paved the way for many accused to abscond and thereby put the trial in jeopardy. These accused persons are a big threat to the society wherever they are in the country. They have exhibited a tendency of committing a particular nature of crime, namely, child trafficking,” the court said.
No Conditions Imposed, Police Lost Track of Accused
The Supreme Court further criticized the High Court for not putting any strong conditions on the accused after granting them bail. The lack of proper safeguards, the court said, allowed the accused to disappear.
“The least that was expected of the High Court while granting bail to all the accused persons was to impose a condition on each of them to mark their presence once in a week at the concerned police station so that the police can keep a check over the movements of all the accused persons. All that the High Court did was to direct the accused persons to remain present before the trial court. In none of the impugned orders there is a condition of marking presence at the concerned police station as a result, the police lost track of all these accused persons.”
Supreme Court Also Disappointed With State Government
The bench strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for failing to act responsibly in the matter. It said the state had not taken the issue seriously enough.
“We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the State handled the situation. Why did the State not do anything for all this period of time? Why did the State not deem fit to challenge the orders of bail passed by the High Court? The State unfortunately has exhibited no seriousness worth the name.”
The court did acknowledge the importance of personal liberty, saying that it should not be taken lightly. But it added that public safety and justice for the community are just as important.
“We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has an immense impact on the mind of a person.”
However, the court emphasized that liberty cannot be treated as unlimited in a society governed by law, “However, in a democratic body polity, which is wedded to the rule of law an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interests and its deprivation must have due sanction of law.”
Justice Must Balance Individual Rights and Society’s Safety
The court wrapped up its message by making it clear that protecting society and delivering justice can’t be ignored in the name of liberty.
“The concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one,” the bench noted. “The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated and such regulations which are the source in law subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for protection of human rights and security of the collective. This is because, fundamentally, laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest.”
