Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Anti-Trafficking Activists Branded ‘Criminals’ For Alleged ‘Overzealous’ Rescue Raid Of Bonded Labour/Minor Children From Brick Kiln

The Court allowed an Appeal by two activists from Guria, an organisation known for its work against human trafficking, challenging the refusal to quash a chargesheet under Sections 186 and 353 of the IPC by the High Court. The Court stated that the High Court, in a “perfunctory manner” observed the issues involved disputed questions of fact.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, “Coming to the facts of the case, uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet do not disclose use of force or holding out threatening gestures giving rise to an apprehension of use of force towards public servant. Physical movement of the labourers would not amount to use of force far less criminal force on a public servant.”

Advocate Aparna Bhat represented the Appellants, while AOR Garvesh Kabra appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant had submitted an Application to the Magistrate alleging the presence of bonded and child laboruers at a brick kiln. In response, the Magistrate ordered the Assistant Labour Commissioner to take action. A team comprising Labour Employment Officers, an Anti Human Trafficking Force (AHTF) inspector, and police constables, accompanied by the Appellants, inspected the kiln.

The Appellant alleged that they found children and laboruers at the site, but the brick kiln owner intervened and took them away. However, the informant, a member of the inspection team, filed a complaint alleging that the appellants forcibly took laboruers and children away and obstructed the team from recording statements.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted that Guria was a "well known and reputed organization fighting against human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of girls/children" and had been recognised for its efforts in rescuing minor girls from traffickers.

The Bench had to determine whether the uncontroverted allegations as narrated in the chargesheet disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 186 and 353 of the IPC.

The Court held that “we can safely conclude uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet do not disclose the ingredients of offence under Section 353 IPC.”

The Bench noted that the Respondents argued that the Appellants obstructed discharge of official duties by not permitting the statements of bonded labourers/children to be recorded before removing them from the site.

“Obstruction to a public servant must be done with the requisite mens rea i.e. to prevent the latter from discharging his official duty…Statements of labourers unequivocally show that no force was used to take them away and they were promptly released. These statements do not give an impression that such action was with the intention to impede discharge of official duty. It appears there was a genuine difference of opinion between the appellants and the officials concerned,” the Bench remarked.

The Bench held, “Even assuming the ingredients under Section 186 are disclosed, prosecution under the said section simplicitor suffers from various insurmountable legal hurdles.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the aforesaid reasons, impugned prosecution is quashed and the appeal is allowed.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 653)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Rajkumari Banju; Advocates Aparna Bhat, Karishma Maria and Gopal Krishna

Respondents: AOR Garvesh Kabra; Advocates Pooja Kabra, Akshay Sharma and Pallavi Kumari

Click here to read/download the Judgment