Back
Bombay HC Cuts Red Tape: from Trial Court Enough to Send Trafficking Victim Home
In a pragmatic ruling that streamlines victim repatriation, the has held that adult survivors of human trafficking don't need a magistrate's formal order to return home—just a simple from the trial court handling their case. The division bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata ordered the immediate repatriation of a Bangladeshi woman rescued in 2024, after she languished over six months in a Mumbai shelter due to bureaucratic ping-pong between courts.
The petitioner, —an NGO specializing in rescuing and rehabilitating trafficking victims from India, Nepal, and Bangladesh—filed the on behalf of the victim, represented by Superintendent Leena Pramod Jadhav.
Lured Across Borders, Trapped in Legal Limbo
The victim, a 25-27-year-old mother from Munshiganj district, Bangladesh (as detailed in reports), faced dire financial straits from her husband's debts. Promised a lucrative job at a Mumbai beauty parlor, she crossed into India without documents via an agent and was rescued on , during a Dahisar police raid alongside six other girls. The case, Special Case No.1595 of 2024 , involves offences under the and for other minors.
Initially, the orally directed the NGO to approach the , deeming her an adult. The magistrate refused, citing the sessions-triable nature. Enter the High Court in , after earlier repatriation permissions lapsed amid trial delays.
On , the HC ordered the trial court to record her evidence swiftly. Yet, by , nothing happened—no charges framed, no testimony taken. The bench lambasted the "unsatisfactory state of affairs" by Union and State authorities, noting the victim's ongoing suffering in shelter care amid health issues and family separation (she has a six-year-old son back home).
Courts in a Loop, Authorities AWOL
Petitioner's counsel (with and ) argued the had cleared her return, and issued a travel permit. Why demand a magistrate order when SOPs were met? Delays violated her rights.
Union counsel cited India-Bangladesh SOPs and MoU on trafficking prevention, plus Maharashtra's 2009 Module, requiring consent for minors or magistrate orders for adults (per Annexure 5 format). State APP echoed trial court hurdles. No one cited law mandating magistrate involvement for adults post-MEA/Bangladesh approvals.
Decoding SOPs: No Law Binds Victims to Magistrates
The bench dissected
, governing
post-rescue:
"A plain reading of Section 17 of ITA makes it clear that, it does not contemplate or require any order permitting repatriation of a victim to her country of origin."
SOPs mention magistrate/ orders, but for adults with clearances? Unnecessary. The court endorsed a "pragmatic" fix: Trial court's suffices, aligning with SOP intent. Here, the Special Court judge who later recorded her statement (post-March hearing) is ideal; elsewhere, the custody-granting court under .
No precedents cited, but the ruling clarifies SOP application, prioritizing victim welfare over rigid forms.
Key Observations
"Why an adult victim would be required to obtain an order from the Magistrate when the, Government of India had already granted permission for the victim’s return to Bangladesh and the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, through its Deputy High Commissioner, had issued the requisite travel permit."(Para 9)
"None of the learned Counsel were able to point out any specific provision in law mandating such an order from the Magistrate."(Para 9.1)
"In our view, the explanation... that the concerned Court hearing the matter should grant a ‘No Objection’ to the repatriation of the victim and that such an endorsement would suffice for the purposes of the Annexure 5 appears to be both pragmatic and consistent with the intent of the SOP."(Para 12)
"In our considered view... the learned Judge of the Special Court, who has recorded the statement of the victim, would be the appropriate authority to record such ‘No Objection’..."(Para 13)
Homeward Bound: HC Steps In
Given the "inordinately delayed" process, the bench invoked writ powers:
"Accordingly, the victim, namely [victim], a Bangladeshi national presently under the care and protection of the Petitioner, shall be repatriated to her country of origin forthwith, subject to furnishing the usual undertakings as may be required to ensure her appearance, as and when required, through video-conferencing in Special Case No.1595 of 2024."
This sets a victim-friendly precedent: faster repatriation via trial court nod, easing cross-border flows under India-Bangladesh pacts. Compliance report due ( WP 3414/2025 ).
For NGOs like , it's a blueprint to bypass lower court loops, ensuring trafficked adults aren't collateral in trials.
