Licence Of Hospital Must Be Suspended If Any Newborn Infant Is Trafficked From There: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court mentioned that a huge gang is dangerously operating within & outside Delhi and is selling trafficked infants and children in different States for sums ranging from Rs. 5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/-.
The Supreme Court observed that the licence of the hospital must be suspended if any newborn infant is trafficked from such hospital.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Criminal Appeals arising from various Orders of the Allahabad High Court which released 13 accused persons on bail in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 363, 311, and 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said, “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.”
The Bench mentioned that a huge gang is dangerously operating within & outside Delhi and is selling trafficked infants and children in different States for sums ranging from Rs. 5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/-.
Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for the Appellants/Victims while AOR Sangeeta Singh and Advocate Tanya Agarwal appeared for the Respondents/Accused. AOR Garvesh Kabra appeared for the State.
Factual Background
The Appeals were filed by the victims of the crime, more particularly the kith and kin of the children who were trafficked, praying for cancellation of bail granted by the High Court to the 13 accused persons. Although notice was served to each of the accused persons, yet only three accused persons appeared before the Court for opposing the plea for cancellation of bail. Many of the accused persons after being released on bail, absconded and their whereabouts were not known to the police. The cases in the Appeals before the Apex Court pertained to an inter-State child trafficking racket profiting from kidnapping, buying, and selling of minor children, especially those children who come from an impoverished background.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, remarked, “We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. 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 Court added that the individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law and in an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to others' rights.
“It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. 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”, it further noted.
The Court also remarked that an individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society.
“… some of the accused persons who have been arrested are habitual offenders. The report says that one Anjali who had been earlier arrested by CBI in a similar case of human trafficking is said to be involved in the present incident”, it noted.
Child Trafficking
The Court was 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 way for many accused persons 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”, it said.
Furthermore, the Court said that 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.
“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”, it remarked.
The Court also took note of the fact that one of the accused persons was not directly involved in actual kidnapping of the minor male child but bought the said child from the accused, as he was longing for a son. In this respect, it remarked, “The desire of Santosh Sao is one of the unfortunate illustrations of the evil that men do. The extent to which people go to have a male child. They do not hesitate to purchase a trafficked child at the cost of causing pain, agony and immense trauma to the biological parents of the trafficked child.”
Court’s Directions
The Court directed that the guilt or innocence of the accused shall be determined by the Trial Court strictly on the basis of the evidence, direct or indirect, that may come on record during the course of the trial and that the Trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner by any of its observations.
“Registry is directed to forward one copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts and one copy each to all the State Governments. So far as the State Governments are concerned, one copy each of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Principal Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development respectively”, it also directed.
The Court, therefore, directed all the accused persons to surrender before the Committal Court and ordered that the same shall remand them to the judicial custody.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the High Court’s Bail Orders.
Cause Title- Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 482)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, AOR Mayank Sapra, Advocates Lalima Das, Karishma Maria, and Gopal Krishna.
Respondents: AORs Sangeeta Singh, Garvesh Kabra, Purna Chandra Patnaik, Gunjan Kumar, Shubhangi Tuli, Advocates Tanya Agarwal, Pooja Kabra, Sujata Upadhyay, Nikita Jaju, Ishwar Chand Roy, Utkarsh Dwivedi, Prashant Kumar, Akshay Sahay, Farhan Khan, Md Shahid Anwar, and Kamlesh Kumar Mishra.
