Source:barandbench.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bombay High Court recently ruled in \nfavour of the autonomy of adult victims rescued from immoral \ntrafficking, observing that such persons cannot be forced to live in a \ncorrection home against their wishes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Single Judge Bench of Justice SS Shinde<\/strong> made\n the observation while ordering the release of a 22-year-old woman. The \nwoman had been rescued with eleven others during a raid conducted by the\n Pandharpur Police under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Shinde ordered her release from a\n correction home, emphasising that she is free to move freely within \nIndia as per her wish and to practice a vocation of her choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said that the fundamental \nrights of the victim stand on a higher pedestal compared to statutory \nrights, and that keeping her at a correction home against her wishes \ninfringes those rights. As noted in the judgment,<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Indisputably Respondent No.2 Victim XYZ is major, therefore it is imperative to consider her wishes…<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I find \nconsiderable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the\n Petitioner that the victim being major, her fundamental right to move \nfrom one place to another place, reside at the place of her choice and \nto chose her vocation has to be considered, and contrary to her wishes \nshe cannot be asked to reside in the said Corrective Institution i.e. \nShaskiya Mahila Rajya Gruh, Prerana Mahila Wasti Gruh, Baramati, Dist. \nPune.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n After being rescued from prostitution \nracket, the victim was sent to a correction home in Baramati, Pune for a\n year by a Magistrate court in Pandharpur. This order was upheld by an \nAdditional Sessions Judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Subsequently, a plea challenging the \nSessions Court order was filed before the Bombay High Court by a woman \nwho claimed to have raised the victim like her own child. The petitioner\n sought custody of the victim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Satyavrat Joshi argued that the victim, who had attained majority, could not be forced to live in a correction home against her wishes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He argued that as per the amended \nobjects of the Immoral Traffic Act, neither the victim nor the customer \nis liable to be prosecuted. It was pointed out that they could only be \nsubjected to reformative mechanisms under the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He further argued that since the \npetitioner had no role in forcing the victim into trafficking, there was\n no harm in releasing the victim into her custody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Shinde noted that the question \nbefore the Court was whether the mechanism provided under the Immoral \nTraffic Act could be used for the reformation of an adult victim in the absence of her willingness<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court ruled,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the\n victim being major, her fundamental right to move from one place to \nanother place, reside at the place of her choice and to choose her \nvocation has to be considered. And contrary to her wishes, she cannot be\n asked to reside in the Corrective Institution<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Shinde, therefore, ordered the \nrelease of the victim and directed that the lower court orders sending \nthe victim to a correction home for one year stand modified to the time \nalready spent by her at the home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court, however, rejected the \npetitioner’s plea for custody of the victim, noting that it is up to \nthe victim to choose where she would want to go after her release from \nthe correction home. The plea was also dismissed considering that the \npetitioner was not the biological mother of the victim, a fact \napparently concealed by the petitioner during earlier court proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consequently, the Court ruled,<\/p>\n\n\n\n “… <\/em>Victim\n XYZ should be set at liberty and to be released forthwith, however, \nafter ascertaining her wish, whether she desires to continue her stay in\n the said Corrective Institution for remaining period or wants to be set\n at liberty\/freed from the said Corrective Institution.<\/em>“<\/strong><\/p>\n