This is a compliance-review order, not a final judgment. It issues time-bound directions to be reviewed on 14-12-2026, decides no new substantive rights, and directs the National Judicial Academy to prepare the Magistrates' protocol — the protocol itself does not yet exist.
- Case
- Prajwala v. Union of India
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- J.B. Pardiwala, J; R. Mahadevan, J
- Case numbers
- M.A. No. 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004
- Outcome
- Compliance-review record of proceedings in M.A. No. 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004, dated 13-10-2026: four pending Victim Protection Plan directions to be fully complied with by all States/UTs; anti-human-trafficking units to be notified as police stations; National Judicial Academy to prepare the Magistrates' threshold-inquiry protocol; fresh status reports on 14-12-2026.
The first compliance review
The Supreme Court on 13 October 2026 held the first compliance review of its Victim Protection Plan for victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation, issued in the main judgment dated 29.05.2026 in exercise of the Court's plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan took on record a compliance table prepared by the petitioner (senior advocate Aparna Bhat) mapping every stakeholder's role and duty under the plan, and a status note from the Union of India, represented by ASG Aishwarya Bhati.
The review produced five sets of operative directions: the Union must ensure four pending additional directions are fully complied with by all States and UTs; anti-human-trafficking units must be given police-station status; the National Judicial Academy must prepare a protocol for Magistrates on the ‘threshold inquiry’; both sides must propose ways to measure the plan's real-world impact; and fresh status reports are due on 14 December 2026.
A compliance table and a status note
The petitioner's counsel presented a compliance table identifying each of the sixteen stakeholders in the plan — from State Governments and High Courts to Anti-Human-Trafficking Units, rescue teams, protective homes, social and case workers, DLSAs, Child Welfare Committees, medical and mental-health professionals, and the Crime Records Bureau — with the exact ‘Roles and Duties’ assigned to each, cross-referenced to the paragraphs of the judgment. The Court called this tabulation ‘a very commendable exercise’ that ‘will go a long way in monitoring the compliance of our directions.’
The Union's status note dealt specifically with the compliance of the four additional directions issued in paragraph 456 of the main judgment. ‘A plain reading of the status note,’ the Court observed, ‘reveals that the four additional directions issued by us have not been fully complied with by all the States/UTs, as on date.’ Both documents were taken on record.
The four directions to be completed
The Court directed the Union of India to ensure that, by the next date of hearing, all States and UTs fully comply with the four additional directions, which it described as ‘absolutely necessary for the ground-level implementation of the Victim Protection Plan’: (i) notifying ‘recognized welfare institutions/organisations’ in accordance with the Explanation to Section 15(6A) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and for the purpose of Section 17A of that Act; (ii) preparing a State/UT-wide list of social welfare workers eligible for the non-official advisory board under Section 13(3)(b) and the panel maintained by the Magistrate under Section 17(5); (iii) designating a Police Nodal Officer; and (iv) designating a Government Nodal Officer.
Separately, the Union must call for information from all stakeholders identified in the petitioner's compliance table, asking in what manner each direction has been complied with and what has been done for the plan's ‘meaningful implementation’.
Anti-human-trafficking units to get police-station status
The petitioner's counsel raised two further points needing urgent attention. The first: anti-human-trafficking units should be given the status of a police station, in accordance with the direction in paragraph 362(b)(iii) of the main judgment dated 29.05.2026. The Court accepted the submission and directed all State and UT Governments, in their respective Home Departments, to give effect to the direction ‘at the earliest by issuing an appropriate notification, in accordance with law’, and directed the Union to take up the issue with all States and UTs ‘at the earliest’ so that the notifications are issued.
The threshold inquiry — and the protocol for Magistrates
The second point concerned the ‘threshold inquiry’ that a Magistrate must conduct when a rescued victim who is an adult (above 18) is produced before her under Section 17 of the ITPA. Under the Victim Protection Plan, this judicial determination identifies voluntary sex workers and decides how their release or rehabilitation should proceed. The rationale is set out in paragraphs 330–356 of the main judgment. The inquiry considers the rescued person's consent, her views on whether she wishes to be placed in long-term safe custody, her statement about the voluntary or non-voluntary nature of her work, the social worker's assessment of that voluntariness, whether she is influenced by threats, coercion, undue influence or force, and whether there are safety concerns placing her at real or immediate risk of danger or re-trafficking.
Crucially, the inquiry ‘is triggered notwithstanding the opinion expressed by the rescued victim that her work is voluntary in nature’ — the Magistrate must conduct it in all circumstances. The Court agreed that the process must be articulated clearly and Magistrates trained so the determination is uniform across the country. It therefore requested the National Judicial Academy to prepare a comprehensive protocol or guidelines enabling Magistrates to conduct the inquiry, with the petitioner permitted to assist the Academy in the preparation.
Measuring whether the plan works
The order's most reflective passage addresses a concern the Bench said it has voiced ‘time and again’: the Court issues directions to safeguard fundamental rights, but ‘once these directions are committed to the paper in the form of a judgment, the matter marks its abrupt end’ — with no means of knowing whether the frameworks are making any measurable difference in people's lives, or what stands in their way. ‘The same anxiety grips us here,’ the order says, because the Victim Protection Plan's real impact cannot be tangibly ascertained.
To address that, the Court wants to hear from the petitioner and the Union on how they and the other stakeholders ‘can help us track progress and measure impact’. By the next hearing on 14 December 2026, the Union must place a fresh status report on record, and the petitioner must give ‘a fair idea of the progress made by the National Judicial Academy’ on the protocol. Both sides must also suggest ‘concrete ways and methods’ for tracking the real implementation, progress and impact of the plan.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order is worth reading as an instance of a ‘continuing mandamus’ — a matter kept alive after judgment so the Court can superintend implementation. Note how the Bench distributes the work: the Union and the States bear compliance, the petitioner supplies the compliance architecture (the table), and the National Judicial Academy — the judiciary's own training institution — is enlisted to translate a judicial standard into uniform practice.
The threshold inquiry itself is the substantive heart. Its logic is anti-paternalist: a trafficker may coach a victim to claim voluntariness, so a mere statement of consent is not enough — yet the inquiry exists to protect autonomy, not to override it. The Magistrate's determination decides whether the adult walks free or enters the protection machinery. Watch how the NJA protocol, when it comes, operationalises that balance: consent, voluntariness assessment by social workers, coercion checks, and safety screening, in every case, without exception.
Finally, paragraph 23 is unusually candid about the limits of adjudication — directions without measurement may remain paper. The Bench's answer is to institutionalise feedback: status reports, stakeholder tables, and an explicit invitation to design impact-tracking. That is a method worth remembering for any public-interest litigation you litigate or study.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- The Court asked the National Judicial Academy to prepare a protocol for Magistrates on the ‘threshold inquiry’. What is the purpose of that inquiry, and why must the Magistrate conduct it even when the rescued adult says her work is voluntary?
- Four ‘additional directions’ from the main judgment had not been fully complied with. Name them, and explain why the Court said they are ‘absolutely necessary for the ground-level implementation’ of the Victim Protection Plan.
- The Court asked both sides to suggest how it can ‘track the real implementation, progress and impact’ of the plan. What anxiety about judicial directions lies behind this request?
