Court Upholds Fundamental Rights, Orders Release of Victim Detained Under Immoral Traffic Act
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice N.J. Jamadar, has quashed the order of a Magistrate that directed the detention of a major victim in a protective home for one year under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The High Court ruled that the detention was unjustified as it violated the fundamental rights of the victim under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of movement and choice of residence.
The case involved Victim No.3, who was rescued during a raid conducted by the Yeola Police at Hotel Vijay Lodging. Following the raid, the Magistrate ordered her detention in a protective home, citing her lack of family support and income as grounds for potential relapse into immoral activities. This decision was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in a revision application.
Advocate Mr. Abhijeet V. Jangale, representing the petitioner, argued that the victim was not an accused but a victim of trafficking, and her detention violated her fundamental rights. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that the absence of a family or economic support could not justify her detention against her will. The court also noted the failure to comply with procedural safeguards under Section 17 of the PITA, 1956, which requires the assistance of a panel of respectable persons in such decisions.
The court highlighted that the objective of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act is to rehabilitate victims, not to punish them. It stressed the importance of respecting the fundamental rights of victims and ensuring that any restrictions on their freedom must be justified by a clear threat to public safety, which was not evident in this case.
The judgment draws on precedents from previous cases, including Asiya Anwar Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra and Kajal Mukesh Singh v. State of Maharashtra, where the courts have upheld the rights of major victims to freedom of movement and choice of residence.
Consequently, the Bombay High Court ordered the immediate release of Victim No.3, provided she is not required to be detained in any other case. The court also directed the victim to refrain from any activities that led to her initial detention.
Bottom Line:
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Victim who is a major cannot be detained in a protective home against her wish merely on the ground of having no family to take care of her, unless there is material justifying such detention on the grounds of public safety or rehabilitation.
Statutory provision(s): Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Section 17(4), Constitution of India Article 19
XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2839609
