The Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling this week, quashing orders that directed the one-year detention of an adult woman rescued from a trafficking situation. Justice N J Jamadar strongly criticized the lower courts' decisions, calling the detention an "unreasonable restriction" on personal liberty.
Court Protects Victim's Fundamental Rights
Justice Jamadar allowed the plea filed by the woman, who challenged orders passed by a judicial magistrate and affirmed by the sessions court. Both lower courts had directed her detention in a protective home for one year following her rescue during a police raid in Nashik district in April 2025.
The High Court made clear that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA) was never intended to punish victims of sexual exploitation. The court emphasized that without material evidence showing the victim's actions fell within PITA's penal provisions, authorities could not subject her to restrictions based on mere assertions that she might return to immoral activities.
Grounds for Detention Found Insufficient
The judicial magistrate had ordered the woman's detention primarily because she had no relatives to care for her and lacked an independent income source. However, the High Court rejected these grounds as constitutionally insufficient.
"The mere fact that the victim was alone, by itself, could not have been a justifiable ground to detain her in a protective home," the court stated in its order. The bench stressed that being alone does not justify detention when it violates fundamental freedoms.
No Evidence of Criminal Activity or Societal Threat
The prosecution presented no material showing the victim had indulged in offences punishable under PITA 1956. Furthermore, authorities provided no evidence that her release would pose any threat to society.
Justice Jamadar observed that "in the absence of any material to justify an inference that the interest of the society and the victim could only be protected by detaining her in a protective home, the impugned orders cannot be sustained."
Constitutional Principles Upheld
The court established that the necessity of detaining a victim in a protective home must be determined against the constitutional rights of personal liberty and fundamental freedom. Without material justifying such restrictions, magistrates cannot order detention simply because a victim lacks family support or financial independence.
This ruling reinforces that personal liberty protections extend to all citizens, including those rescued from trafficking situations. The decision clarifies that protective measures under PITA must be evidence-based rather than precautionary when dealing with adult victims.
Background of the Case
Police conducted the raid at a hotel in Nashik district in April 2025, rescuing five women and arresting two persons for offences under PITA. While authorities released two rescued women to family members, they detained the petitioner based on her lack of relatives and income.
The Bombay High Court's decision now sets an important precedent for how courts should handle similar cases involving adult trafficking victims under PITA legislation.
