Who will make sure every State acts? The Union, the Supreme Court says, as it directs that Anti-Human Trafficking Units be notified as police stations.
New Delhi: Reviewing how its judgment on the trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation is being carried out, the Supreme Court directs States and UTs to notify their Anti-Human Trafficking Units as police stations, through the Home Departments of all of them [Prajwala v. Union of India].
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the order of 13 October 2026 on a miscellaneous application in the 2004 writ petition, at the first listing after the final judgment. Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for the petitioner and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the Union of India. The next hearing is on 14 December 2026.
Four directions still short of compliance
The Union’s status note showed, in the Court’s reading, that four further directions in paragraph 456 had not been fully complied with by all States and Union Territories. Those directions concern notifying recognised welfare institutions under Sections 15(6A) and 17A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, preparing State-wide lists of eligible social welfare workers under Sections 13(3)(b) and 17(5), and designating a Police Nodal Officer and a Government Nodal Officer in each State and Union Territory.
The Court reminded the governments that these steps are absolutely necessary for the Victim Protection Plan to work on the ground. The Union must ensure full compliance by the next date, collect information from every stakeholder on how each direction has been followed and what has been done to implement the Plan, and file a fresh status report.
Police station status for the units
The petitioner asked for this relief, and the Court granted it with reference to paragraph 362(b)(iii) of the main judgment. Every State and Union Territory Home Department is to issue an appropriate notification, in accordance with law, at the earliest. The Union has been told to take the matter up with all of them and to make sure the notifications are in fact issued.
The 29 May judgment, and a table to track it
Prajwala, a Hyderabad-based organisation, filed the writ petition in 2004. The final judgment of 29 May 2026 framed a Victim Protection Plan under Article 142 of the Constitution, dealt with the constitution of an Organised Crime Investigation Agency and made a set of recommendations to the Union.
The petitioner placed before the Court a compliance table naming every stakeholder under the Plan, from State departments and High Courts to Magistrates, Anti-Human Trafficking Units, rescue teams, protective homes, District Legal Services Authorities, Child Welfare Committees and the Crime Records Bureau, with a note on each one’s duties cross-referenced to the judgment. The order calls this a commendable exercise for monitoring compliance.
Magistrates’ inquiry, and a question on impact
On a further request from the petitioner, the Court noted that the threshold inquiry a Magistrate must hold under Section 17 of the 1956 Act when rescued adult persons are produced has to be held in every case, even where the person says the work was voluntary. The National Judicial Academy has been asked to prepare a protocol for Magistrates, with the petitioner’s assistance.
The Bench also said it has no means of knowing whether the frameworks it lays down make a real difference, and asked the petitioner and the Union to suggest concrete ways of tracking the implementation, progress and impact of the Plan.
What the notification would change
Anti-Human Trafficking Units exist in most districts on paper, but without police station status they cannot register FIRs or investigate on their own, and depend on the local police station for every step. A notification would give them that power, and the Union now carries the task of getting every State to act.
The order also shows how the Court means to supervise its May 2026 judgment: stakeholder by stakeholder, with the Union gathering and reporting compliance, and the next review fixed for December.
Case Title: Prajwala v. Union of India [MA No. 530 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56 of 2004]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat with Advocates Rajkumari Banju, Saransh Khandelwal, Sudharshan Lamba and Amrish Kumar for the petitioner; Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati with Advocates Shivika Mehra and Shagun Thakur for the Union of India