Criminal Liability For Trafficking Of Women For Entertainment Industry
Case 1: “Music‐Audition” Lure in Mumbai
Facts:
In Mumbai, an accused broker posed as a film/ music industry recruiter, offering young women “auditions” and film/album opportunities.
Two women were rescued following a sting operation. The accused was arrested in 2019.
He was found to have induced the women under false pretences of entertainment industry jobs, but ultimately the scheme was sexual exploitation under the guise of “audition”.
Legal Issues:
The offence was prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 370 (trafficking of persons) and under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) which targets trafficking of women/girls for prostitution.
Key elements: recruitment under deception (false promise of entertainment job), transport/housing/harbouring, exploitation for commercial sex services.
The “entertainment industry job” promise was a ruse, making this trafficking rather than mere job fraud.
Outcome:
The sessions court sentenced the accused broker to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The court emphasised that the lure of film/album auditions was just the façade; the real purpose was trafficking for prostitution.
Significance:
Shows how trafficking networks exploit the allure of the entertainment industry to recruit women.
Reinforces that promise of “modeling/acting” can mask sexual exploitation, thus falling within trafficking laws.
The strong sentence shows judicial seriousness in such cases.
Case 2: OTT/Online Project Promise & Blackmail in Mumbai
Facts:
An 18‑year‐old girl was lured by a woman and her daughter under promise of roles in “OTT (over‑the‑top) streaming projects”.
She was then “sold” to three men who sexually assaulted her over a four‑month period, while video‑recording the assaults. The recordings were used to blackmail the victim further, coercing her into compliance.
The accused received money (around ₹20,000) in return for trafficking the girl.
Legal Issues:
The crime involved recruitment under false promise of entertainment/acting work, transport/harbouring for sexual exploitation, and use of recordings to compel compliance—so meets the definition of trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Relevant offences: trafficking (IPC Section 370), ITPA provisions for procurement/inducement of person for prostitution, offences relating to exploitation of an adult under false pretences and blackmail.
Importantly, the “entertainment job” promise served as the lure.
Outcome:
The woman and her daughter were arrested and charged in the case. (Trial ongoing as of last public update).
This case highlights the shift in trafficking modalities into “gig/acting/OTT work” promise rather than old‐style brothel lure.
Significance:
Shows the evolution of trafficking networks using modern platforms (OTT, acting roles) as recruitment bait.
Illustrates how recording/blackmail are used within trafficking schemes, increasing coercion.
Emphasises the need for awareness of non‑traditional recruitment routes (not just brothels, but “studio/acting jobs”).
Case 3: Mother Trafficking Her Minor Daughter into Prostitution (Mumbai)
Facts:
A mother pushed her minor (under‑age) daughter into prostitution and lived off her earnings. The victim’s father had died and the girl was vulnerable.
The court found that the mother not only exploited her child’s labour (sexual) but also assaulted her when she tried to refuse.
Legal Issues:
The main charges: trafficking under IPC Section 370 (or 370A for minors), ITPA Section 4 (living off earnings of prostitution) as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) for sexual exploitation of a minor.
The court recognised that recruiting a person (even a daughter) for sexual exploitation is trafficking, especially when inducement/coercion is involved.
Also, exploitation of a minor elevates gravity and penalty.
Outcome:
The mother was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment for pushing her daughter into prostitution and living off her earnings.
In sentencing, the court underscored the responsibility of a parent to protect the child, not exploit her.
Significance:
Demonstrates how trafficking may also happen within family settings (not just external traffickers).
Minor exploitation is treated with high seriousness under law.
Highlights that “entertainment” may be the guise (or not the guise) but if sexual exploitation is the outcome, trafficking law applies.
Case 4: Acquittal Due to Prosecution Failure (Thane, Mumbai Region)
Facts:
A case stemming from a 2015 raid on an apartment where women were alleged to have been trafficked and forced into prostitution.
The accused woman faced charges under IPC Section 370 and ITPA. However the trial dragged for 10 years. The decoy, victims and witnesses could not be produced properly by prosecution.
Legal Issues:
Although the case involved alleged trafficking (supply of women for commercial sexual exploitation) the absence of key witness evidence and prosecution failure meant the case could not succeed.
Highlights importance of victim/witness testimony in trafficking prosecutions.
Shows that mere raid/seizure is not enough; chain of evidence must be maintained for conviction.
Outcome:
The court acquitted the accused due to failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The decoy and victims were “not traceable”; decoy customer did not appear; prosecution did not examine key witnesses.
Significance:
Demonstrates that trafficking law enforcement is difficult: need for strong evidence, witness protection, timely trial.
Acquittal does not mean trafficking did not occur – rather procedural weakness.
Shows gaps in the system: long delay, witness non‑cooperation, thereby weakening anti‑trafficking enforcement.
Case 5: Telangana High Court’s Preventive Detention Refusal (Brothel/Racketeer)
Facts:
A woman was detained under a preventive detention order (for running prostitution business/trafficking women). She challenged the detention in the Telangana High Court. The Court found that the syndicate was trafficking women—exploiting them in brothel/online prostitution network. The women were trafficked (some from other states) into a prostitution racket.
The Court described trafficking of women as “the gravest form of abuse”.
Legal Issues:
Though the case was about preventive detention (not ordinary criminal trial) but the Court’s observations highlight exploitation of women trafficked into prostitution ring.
Legal principle: persons who traffic women (including for brothel/entertainment belt) are liable; victims are not to be treated as criminal offenders.
The Court emphasised that the exploitation involves physical/psychological torture and is unacceptable.
Outcome:
The habeas corpus plea by the woman was dismissed; the detention order was held valid. The court found that there was sufficient material to show her habitual involvement in illegal trafficking activities.
Key point: the court spoke strongly in judgment about the nature of trafficking for prostitution/entertainment business.
Significance:
Affirms that courts view trafficking for sexual/entertainment exploitation as severe human rights abuse.
Highlights that legal system distinguishes traffickers/syndicates from victims of trafficking and ensures victims aren’t criminalised.
Shows regulatory role of preventive detention where trafficking networks are identified.
Key Legal Principles & Observations
Definition of trafficking: Recruitment, transportation, harbouring, transfer, receipt of persons by threat, coercion, abduction, fraud or inducement for the purpose of exploitation (sexual or other) is trafficking.
Entertainment industry as facade: Many trafficking cases use “modeling/acting/audition/OTT job” promises to lure women into sexual exploitation. Prosecutors must show the promise was false and exploitation followed.
Victim vs trafficker distinction: Victims lured/coerced into prostitution for “jobs” are victims of trafficking, not offenders. Laws (e.g., ITPA) punish traffickers (procurement, living off earnings, brothel‑keeping) not the victim sex worker. Case law confirms victims must not be prosecuted for prostitution.
Aggravating factors: Minor age of victim, cross‑state recruitment, use of blackmail/recording, family involvement, promises of entertainment jobs all increase severity.
Burden of proof and evidence: Strong witness testimony, decoy operations, documentation of recruitment promise, payment/transaction evidence, transport/housing evidence are crucial. Without it cases often fail (see acquittal case above).
Penalties: Trafficking involving adult victims may carry 7–10 years or more; involving minors or serious exploitation often much higher. Laws such as IPC Section 370A (in India) provide for higher for children.
Jurisdiction/legislation: In India, IPC Sections 370/370A, ITPA, POCSO Act (for minors) are used. Courts are clarifying that victims are not to be charged under ITPA Section 5 which relates to procuring/inducing persons for prostitution.
Broader policy/awareness: These cases illustrate that the “entertainment industry” (films, TV, OTT, modeling) is a risk vector for trafficking. Training of police/enforcement to recognise false job‑lures is important.
RELATED Blog
comments