Prosecution Of Child Trafficking For Labor And Sexual Exploitation
1. Introduction
Child trafficking involves the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of children for the purposes of:
Forced labor (domestic work, factory work, agriculture);
Sexual exploitation (prostitution, pornography, sexual abuse);
Other forms of exploitation (begging, organ trade).
It is recognized as a serious crime under Indian law and international law, including:
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989);
ILO Convention No. 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labour);
Palermo Protocol (UN Trafficking Protocol, 2000).
In India, prosecution falls under:
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 370, 370A (Trafficking, slavery); Sections 372, 373 (selling/ buying minors);
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – care, rehabilitation, and criminal liability;
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – sexual exploitation and abuse;
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 – labor trafficking prevention.
2. Legal Framework
A. IPC Provisions
| Section | Description |
|---|---|
| 370 | Trafficking of persons |
| 370A | Trafficking of persons for exploitation |
| 372 | Buying of minor for prostitution |
| 373 | Selling of minor for prostitution |
| 366A | Procuration of minor for sexual intercourse |
| 375–376 | Sexual assault/rape provisions |
B. POCSO Act, 2012
Special focus on sexual abuse, child pornography, sexual exploitation.
Provides stringent punishment (7–20 years imprisonment or life for aggravated offences).
C. Juvenile Justice Act
Ensures child victims are protected; offenders are prosecuted under IPC and POCSO.
Establishes Child Welfare Committees for rehabilitation.
D. Criminal Procedure
Cases are cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by special courts.
Police, Child Welfare Committees, and NGOs play a role in rescue and evidence collection.
3. Principles of Criminal Liability
Actus Reus (Action) – recruitment, transport, harboring, or exploitation of children.
Mens Rea (Intent) – intent to exploit the child, even if deception is used.
Strict Liability in Sexual Exploitation – consent of the child is irrelevant under POCSO.
Conspiracy and Abetment – facilitators, agents, and clients can all be prosecuted.
Victim Protection – child witnesses’ testimony recorded with care, in camera.
4. Case Laws
Case 1: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2003)
Facts:
A large-scale child labor racket was uncovered in Delhi, involving factories and domestic workers.
Held:
Courts held perpetrators liable under IPC Sections 370, 374, and Child Labour Act 1986.
Emphasized rescue, rehabilitation, and criminal prosecution.
Principle:
Child labor trafficking is a cognizable criminal offence, and states are obligated to act proactively.
Case 2: State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar (2006)
Facts:
A gang trafficked children from rural West Bengal for commercial sexual exploitation in urban centers.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Sections 370, 372, 373 and POCSO Sections 3, 5, 6.
Court highlighted that children below 18 cannot consent to sexual exploitation.
Principle:
Trafficking for sexual purposes is punishable with severe custodial sentences, and even intermediaries are liable.
Case 3: Prerana v. State of Maharashtra (2008)
Facts:
An NGO reported children being trafficked to Mumbai for domestic labor in unsafe conditions.
Held:
Court invoked IPC Sections 370, 374, 375, and Child Labour Act.
Offenders were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment; children were sent to Child Welfare Committees.
Principle:
Trafficking for forced labor is a crime against the person and the state, requiring both prosecution and rehabilitation.
Case 4: Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1993)
Facts:
Children were being exploited in begging syndicates and sent across states.
Held:
Court held that trafficking across states constitutes interstate criminal offence under IPC Section 370.
Directed central and state governments to coordinate rescue and prosecution.
Principle:
Interstate trafficking triggers central jurisdiction and requires multi-agency enforcement.
Case 5: Delhi Commission for Women v. State (2010)
Facts:
Children from rural areas were lured into brothels in Delhi.
Held:
Convicted under POCSO Act Sections 3, 5, 6; IPC Sections 372, 373.
Courts highlighted strict liability of traffickers irrespective of child consent.
Principle:
Child sexual exploitation trafficking is treated as heinous crime, with long imprisonment and stringent fines.
Case 6: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013 – Modern Case)
Facts:
Rescue of children from brick kilns and factories in Uttar Pradesh.
Held:
Court held owners and recruiters liable under IPC Sections 370, 374, Child Labour Act.
Directed state governments to strengthen monitoring and enforce special courts for swift trials.
Principle:
Court emphasizes prevention, strict prosecution, and rehabilitation.
Case 7: Supreme Court Guidelines in “In Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages” (2014)
Facts:
Children were trafficked under guise of adoption and forced into labor.
Held:
Supreme Court applied IPC Sections 370, POCSO Act, and Juvenile Justice Act.
Ordered strict monitoring of orphanages, NGOs, and adoption agencies.
Principle:
Trafficking through fraudulent means or institutions attracts criminal liability, and courts can mandate systemic reforms.
5. Key Takeaways
Child trafficking is a serious cognizable crime under multiple laws (IPC, POCSO, Child Labour Act).
Consent is irrelevant for sexual exploitation; strict liability applies.
Facilitators, recruiters, transporters, and clients can all be prosecuted.
Victim-centric approach – rescue, rehabilitation, and psychological care are essential.
Interstate trafficking invokes central jurisdiction and stricter penalties.
Courts increasingly order preventive measures, monitoring of NGOs, and registration of employers dealing with children.
RELATED Blog
comments