Conflating Adult Sex Work With Sex Trafficking Undermines Dignity: Supreme Court Issues Nationwide Guidelines For Rescue, Post Rescue & Rehabilitation of Victims

The Bench observed that legal and social responses frequently blur the distinction between trafficked victims and consenting adult sex workers, creating a binary between the “innocent victim” and the “guilty participant”. The Court noted that such notions of immorality make it easier for law enforcement agencies and even civil society to treat voluntary adult sex workers as persons less deserving of constitutional dignity and protection. Emphasising that trafficking and consensual adult sex work cannot be viewed through the same lens, the Court said the law must remain sensitive to individual agency while ensuring robust action against exploitation and organised trafficking.

While deciding the long-pending matter on trafficking and rehabilitation, the Court also issued a nationwide victim-protection framework covering rescue, rehabilitation, prosecution and reintegration.

Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “…such notions of ‘immorality’ and ‘decent work’ allow grouping of those engaged in prostitution into groups of ‘innocent victim’ (trafficked victims) and the ‘guilty participant’ (voluntary adult sex workers). The former is accorded sympathy and legal protection, whilst the latter is met with moral disapproval. By characterising a person as ‘immoral’ or ‘fallen’, it becomes easier for law enforcement and for civil society alike to treat voluntary adult sex workers as people who are less deserving of dignity and legal protection”.

Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for the petitioner and Justice Indu Malhotra, (Retd.) Judge Supreme Court had appeared as the then Additional Solicitor General and Senior Advocate K. Radhakrishnan appeared for the respondent.

“ITPA, by conflating prostitution and trafficking, brings within its net a wide and heterogeneous group of persons, from those trafficked against their will, to those who were trafficked but continue voluntarily, to those who have chosen sex work for themselves. All of these persons are, under the current framework, processed through the same mechanism under Section 17, without differentiation. To avoid the victim protective plan reflecting such an approach, we identified two measures that, based on the procedure in Section 17, should be factored into the plan. First is the need for a threshold inquiry to identify voluntary adult sex workers at the outset, and spare them the full machinery of the process, i.e., the principle of non-intereference”, the Bench observed further.

Second, is the recognition of the victim’s consent as the governing factor in the magistrate’s final decisions on detention and reintegration, i.e., primacy of the victim’s consent. Being cognisant of the nature of the trafficking offence, we have also identified circumstances in which such a departure from the principle of non-interference and primacy of the victim’s consent would be warranted, i.e., situations where the victim’s safety is at risk, or the consent/wishes expressed by the victim are a product of threat, coercion or undue influence.

The Court also drew a clear distinction between trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation and consensual adult sex work, cautioning against treating both as interchangeable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. It observed that the legal and constitutional response to trafficking cannot be built on an assumption that every person engaged in prostitution is necessarily a trafficked victim. Such conflation, the Court said, often leads to overbroad police action and undermines the dignity, autonomy and legal protections owed to adult sex workers.

“…one conclusion does emerge from the above discussion: prostitution and those engaging in it cannot be reduced to simplistic binaries of victimhood/agency and consent/coercion. The reality is much more complex. The question then is how do we move beyond such binaries?”, the Bench said in the judgment.

“It is particularly important to understand the consequences that follow from placing those engaging in prostitution in binaries of victim and agent. If we view them simply as ‘victims’ who lack agency, there is a risk that we might turn a deaf ear to their desires and wishes. On the other hand, if we view them as ‘agents’, we might not provide any measures of intervention at all, despite the host of vulnerabilities that such prostitutes face, both structural and non-structural. Rather, it is best to view prostitutes as persons in whom vulnerability and agency coexist”, the Bench said.

“In all of us, agency and vulnerability coexist. What varies is the extent to which one bears upon the other, and this is determined largely by the circumstances of our lives. For a person who faces poverty, social exclusion, and the absence of livelihood alternatives, their vulnerability may significantly narrow the range of choices available to them. But it does not extinguish choice altogether. Acknowledging this co-existence has two important implications when it comes to those who engage in prostitution. First, viewing a woman who has entered prostitution voluntarily as an ‘agent’ does not mean that one becomes blind to the vulnerabilities that shaped and constrained her decision. Understanding her agency requires understanding the circumstances in which it was exercised, thereby necessitating measures in cases where agency is severely constrained. Secondly, viewing a trafficked or coerced woman as a ‘victim’ does not mean she is without agency. Even within conditions of exploitation and coercion, she retains the capacity to make decisions about her present and her future”, it further said.

In the guidelines, at the pre-rescue stage, the Court directed authorities to move away from indiscriminate enforcement methods and specifically called for ending unplanned and publicised “mass raids” as the default method of rescue. It mandated proper training of officials involved in rescue operations, including sensitisation on victim-appropriate conduct, non-coercive rescue methods and trauma-informed handling.

During rescue and post-rescue stages, the Court directed inclusion of women police officers and NGO workers, immediate separation of victims from traffickers, recovery of personal belongings and identity documents, access to translators, safe accommodation, counselling and urgent medical assistance. The Court further stressed that victims’ statements should be recorded only after ensuring safety and psychological stability, and confidentiality of identity must be preserved throughout.

For rehabilitation and reintegration, the Bench directed States to ensure sufficient capacity in protective homes, livelihood and skill training, access to education, healthcare, psychiatric care and long-term safeguards against re-trafficking. It also underlined that restoration and reintegration plans must be individualised and based on the informed consent of the victim, with periodic follow-up after reintegration.

On the criminal justice side, the Court mandated free professional legal aid, sensitisation of prosecutors and judicial officers, and continuous victim support during trial.

The Court, however, declined to issue a mandamus for creation of a separate Organised Crime Investigation Agency, observing that anti-trafficking functions are presently distributed across multiple institutions. It left it open to the Union government to establish such a specialised body in future if considered necessary.

Cause Title: Prajwala Union v. Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 609)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Aparna Bhat, Senior Advocate.

Respondent: K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv, R.M. Bajaj, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment