In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed systemic lapses in tackling child trafficking while delivering a sharp rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government and the Allahabad High Court in Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.
“When a child dies, they are with God. But when they are lost, they are at the mercy of traffickers.”
— Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Supreme Court of India
New Delhi— The Supreme Court of India delivered a scathing critique of the Uttar Pradesh government and the Allahabad High Court over their mishandling of a deeply disturbing child trafficking case. The judgment was pronounced by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan, who made several strong observations and issued binding directions aimed at curbing the menace of child trafficking nationwide.
The case, titled Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025), originally centered on anticipatory bail pleas filed by accused persons involved in a child trafficking racket. However, as the matter unfolded, the Court expanded its scope to address the broader systemic failures and alarming trends surrounding child trafficking in India.
Serious Indictment of the Authorities
Justice Pardiwala, reading the judgment, condemned the Uttar Pradesh authorities for their complete apathy and lack of legal initiative in a matter of grave social and legal concern. Noting that the state government failed even to file an appeal against problematic bail orders, the Court remarked:
“We are extremely disappointed with the manner in which the State of Uttar Pradesh conducted itself. No timely appeal was filed, and the urgency of the matter was grossly undermined by the authorities.”
The Court was equally critical of the Allahabad High Court, which it said had “callously granted anticipatory bail” without applying basic safeguards. As a result, several of the accused managed to abscond, creating serious threats to public safety. Justice Pardiwala stated:
“The High Court’s casual approach led to a collapse of the preventive mechanism. At the very least, it should have directed the accused to mark weekly attendance at the local police station. Due to the absence of such conditions, the police lost track of all the accused.”
Insights from the NHRC Study and Media Reports
The Court relied heavily on a 2023 report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), prepared in collaboration with the Bhartiya Institute of Development Studies, which highlighted alarming patterns in child trafficking. The Court incorporated the report’s findings and recommendations into the final judgment.
Justice Pardiwala revealed that
“while the bench was finalizing its judgment, a Times of India report surfaced, detailing horrifying cases of newborns being stolen at birth and sold for lakhs of rupees“
This news report was also appended to the judgment, highlighting the real-time relevance and gravity of the issue.
Case Facts: Shocking Details Emerge
The Court shed light on the modus operandi of the trafficking ring, revealing that Manish Jain, the principal accused, had orchestrated the illegal procurement of a male child, for which Rs 4 lakhs were exchanged. Alongside him, Jagdish Baranwal and Anuradha Devi were identified as key operatives in the trafficking network.
Justice Pardiwala emphasized:
“Even if one desires to adopt a child, the law does not permit obtaining a trafficked baby. The accused knew full well that the baby was stolen. This was not a case of ignorance but of calculated criminality.”
GUIDELINES ISSUES BY THE COURT
The Court , In the Para 81 of the Judgement laid down the ten guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for Child Trafficking cases and bail in such cases:
- Committal of Cases to Sessions Court:
- The Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, must commit all three criminal cases mentioned in paragraph 9 to the Sessions Court within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
- Framing of Charges:
- After the committal, the Sessions Court must frame charges against the individual accused in each case within one week.
- Education for Trafficked Children:
- The State Government is directed to ensure admission of trafficked children in schools as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and to continue supporting their education.
- Victim Compensation:
- At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court must pass appropriate compensation orders under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), including under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh.
- Implementation of BIRD Recommendations:
- All State Governments across the country must study and implement the recommendations of the BIRD report dated 12.04.2023, as reproduced in paragraph 34 of the judgment.
- Collection of Trial Data by High Courts:
- All High Courts are directed to collect data on pending child trafficking trials, issue circulars on the administrative side accordingly, and ensure timely completion of these trials.
- Trial of Absconding Accused:
- Trial courts must take immediate action against absconding accused by issuing non-bailable warrants and proceed separately with their trials so as not to delay proceedings against co-accused.
- Expeditious Trial Process:
- Once charges are framed, evidence must be recorded on a day-to-day basis, and trials must be concluded within six months from the date of the circular.
- Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors:
- The State Government is directed to appoint three Special Public Prosecutors well-versed in criminal trials to conduct these cases at the earliest.
- Police Protection and Apprehension of Absconders:
- The State Government must provide police protection to victims and their families to prevent evidence tampering.
- The State Police is given two months to trace and apprehend all absconding accused persons and produce them before the concerned court.
A Stern Warning to Hospital Administrations
In Paragraph 91, the Hon’ble Court delivers a stern warning to hospital administrations, reflecting the gravity of infant trafficking and the non-negotiable duty of care owed by healthcare institutions to newborns and their mothers.
“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 newbom infant in all respects”
The statement made by the court is analysed as follows:
- Zero Tolerance for Trafficking of Newborns
The Court declares in unequivocal terms that any instance of a newborn being trafficked from a hospital constitutes not just a legal offence but a gross ethical failure on the part of the hospital management. Such an act is deemed intolerable and must invite strict and immediate consequences.
- Suspension of Hospital License as a Primary Response
The Court lays down that in the event of such an occurrence:
“The immediate action against the hospital should be suspension of licence to run the hospital over and above other actions in accordance with law.”
- This means the hospital’s operational license should be suspended immediately as the first disciplinary step, regardless of further investigation or trial.
- The suspension is to be treated in addition to, not in lieu of, other civil, criminal, or regulatory actions under prevailing healthcare, criminal, and child protection laws.
- Recognition of Hospital’s Fiduciary Duty
The Court highlights the special fiduciary relationship between a hospital and an expectant mother:
“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.”
This imposes a legal and moral obligation on hospitals to:
- Ensure the safety and security of the newborn from the moment of delivery.
- Maintain strict protocols to prevent unauthorized access, identity swapping, or removal of infants from the premises.
- Implement surveillance, tagging systems, and trained personnel to ensure accountability.
Message to All Citizens – A Caution from the Court (Para 90)
Para 90 of the judgment carries a heartfelt and urgent appeal from the Hon’ble Court to every citizen of the country, particularly parents, highlighting the crucial need for vigilance and proactive care towards their children.
The Court observes that:
“We want to convey a message to one and all, more particularly to the parents across the country, that they should remain extremely vigilant and careful with their children. A slight carelessness or negligence or laxity on their part may prove to be extremely costly…”
This warning arises from the Court’s deep concern over the growing menace of child trafficking – an evil that often thrives on momentary lapses in attention or supervision.
Pain of Loss: Death vs. Disappearance
The Court draws a profound emotional distinction between the death of a child and the trafficking or disappearance of a child. It notes:
- In the tragic event of a child’s death, parents – though shattered – may eventually come to terms with their grief, seeking solace in faith and time.
- But when a child goes missing and remains untraced, the anguish becomes unending. The uncertainty, the hopeless waiting, and the torment of not knowing their child’s fate becomes a lifelong suffering. The Court poignantly remarks:
“…the pain and agony that the parents may have to face when they lose their children to such gangs engaged in trafficking… is worse than death.”
This emotional devastation, the Court states, is a silent cruelty, forcing parents to live with wounds that never heal.
A Humble Yet Urgent Appeal
With great humility but firm conviction, the Court urges all citizens to:
- Stay alert and aware in all settings – public, private, rural, urban.
- Teach children about basic safety practices and whom to trust.
- Keep a watchful eye in crowded areas like markets, stations, fairs, hospitals, etc.
- Be mindful of suspicious behavior or unusual movements involving children and report them promptly.
The message is clear – vigilance is not optional, but an essential duty of care in today’s environment, where trafficking networks prey on vulnerability and neglect.
CASE TITLE:
PINKI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1927 OF 2025
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
READ MORE REPORTS ON JUSTICE JB PARDIWALA
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
