The May 2026 judgment in Prajwala vs. Union of India delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan of the Supreme Court is both path-breaking and historic for the simple reason that it places a sex-trafficked person at the centre of all criminal justice proceedings. It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that for the first time in Independent India, a sex-trafficked person will be heard and her needs will be considered her “right” and providing these will not be deemed as charity or a favour done by either the state or a non-state player. To understand this judgment, it is perhaps necessary to understand the 22-year-long history of this public interest litigation petition.

The frustration and exasperation of a broken system and lack of institutional mechanisms were the trigger points for Prajwala, an anti-trafficking organisation based out of Hyderabad, to file this petition way back in 2004. Its proactive pressure led to the designing of exclusive schemes such as the Ujjwala scheme to establish safe homes for victims and the National Legal Services Authority (Victims of Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation) Scheme.

The Union Home Ministry issued advisories to treat trafficking as an organised crime, and designated the National Investigation Agency to investigate human trafficking cases. An anti-trafficking Bill did make the rounds. Despite all these developments, the situation of the “victim” on the ground did not radically change. A few superficial changes in semantics perhaps gave an illusion of progress, but the “victim” continued to be on the fringes of the criminal justice system, never heard or acknowledged to be a “person” having rights and never given access to opportunities as an entitlement. It is this dichotomy that compelled Prajwala to persist with this petition.

One could still say that the intent to find a lasting solution was on the government’s priority list for some time but soon it changed, and the state took a stand in the court that enough was done in legal amendments and there was nothing further that needs to be changed.

When Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan’s Bench heard this matter, it had been 18 years since the original petition was filed, and they took another four years to pass the judgment.

So, what makes this judgment so unique?

Apart from being an insightful read, I believe it will be a pathfinder for those in the criminal justice system on what it means to be “victim centric” when dealing with cases of sex trafficking. For the first time, it ensures rehabilitation as a right of the victim and reiterates that the right to live with dignity means not to be treated as a commodity, to be provided material support for meaningful existence, and to be recognised with respect. The judgement also reaffirms that “informed consent” is an adult victim’s entitlement..

Three categories

So who is a victim? The judgment clearly says that all women in sex work are victims which include those coerced, those who were coerced but have today normalised the experience, and those who choose it voluntarily.

An interesting observation the judges make is that “despite all the differences that exist between those who argue for and against prostitution, there is a broad agreement that the risk of exploitation and abuse is inherent to the practice, and that vulnerability and violation characterize the conditions in which prostitution occurs (Point 407).”

So, can all the three categories be rescued? The judgment says “yes”, which means even those who have chosen it voluntarily can be rescued. This position clearly demonstrates that the learned judges are much aware of the situation on the ground and the difficulties the police face to differentiate a sex-trafficked person from a voluntary adult woman in sex work during a rescue operation. They observe in Point 351: “A trafficker may tutor or coerce a victim into claiming that she is a voluntary sex worker, or into withholding consent to rehabilitation or reintegration, thereby ensuring her return into his control under the garb of choice and consent.”

The Victim Protection Plan issued by this Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 32 and 142 of the Constitution is the most coherent document that provides clear structural guidelines to ensure that the dignity, informed consent and agency of a sex-trafficked person is upheld at every stage. While the judgment clearly says that all women in prostitution could be removed from a place of exploitation and kept at a safe home, it ensures a “threshold enquiry” by the magistrate within a week after rescue to ensure those who have come into it voluntarily have the option to leave. For this purpose, the magistrate will have to take the support of social workers who will make the inquiry. The plan ensures that a deeper inquiry is done in cases where the social worker’s assessment indicates that the consent is manufactured through threats of coercion, force or undue influence. Some other significant assertions is the notification of all anti-human trafficking units as police stations and the clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders responsible for rescue, rehabilitation and reintegration. The plan ensures a clear timeline, unambiguity on the code of conduct for those conducting rescues, and the steps the judicial officer needs to take to ensure that the victim is heard at every step and she is the only deciding authority of her life.

The plan, which will act as a law till Parliament passes a new law, is a radical shift in the way a sex-trafficked adult woman will be henceforth dealt with by the criminal justice system. In the words of the judges, the “Victim Protection Plan should reflect a commitment to the victims that this Court will accord them the dignity that was always theirs”.

Sunitha Krishnan is the founder of Prajwala