(UPSC GS Paper I – Society: Vulnerable Sections; GS Paper II – Governance, Judiciary & Social Justice)
Context (Introduction)
A recent Supreme Court of India judgment describing child trafficking as a “deeply disturbing reality” brings renewed focus on India’s persistent trafficking networks, despite constitutional safeguards, special laws, and multiple government schemes aimed at child protection.
Scale and Nature of Child Trafficking in India
- Magnitude of the Problem: As per NCRB Crime in India data, over 2,200 children were trafficked in 2022, with girls constituting a majority. States such as West Bengal, Telangana, Bihar, Maharashtra and Assam consistently report high numbers due to poverty, migration corridors and porous borders.
- Organised Crime Networks: Trafficking operates through decentralised yet interconnected verticals—recruitment, transportation, harbouring and exploitation—often spread across States, complicating detection and prosecution, as noted by the Supreme Court.
- Forms of Exploitation: Children are trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation, forced labour, domestic work, begging, and increasingly for online sexual abuse material, reflecting adaptation to digital platforms.
Reasons for Persistence of Child Trafficking
- Socio-Economic Drivers: Poverty, seasonal migration, debt bondage, lack of schooling, family disintegration and disasters push children into vulnerability. UNICEF notes that children from migrant and informal labour households face disproportionately higher trafficking risks.
- Demand-Side Factors: Urban informal economies, tourism hubs, construction sites and domestic work markets sustain demand. NCRB data shows trafficking hotspots align with major urban and industrial centres.
- Weak Preventive Governance: Limited surveillance in source areas, understaffed Child Welfare Committees, and poor inter-State coordination weaken early detection. Parliamentary Standing Committee reports have flagged capacity gaps in child protection institutions.
- Low Conviction Rates: Conviction rates under trafficking-related provisions remain low (often below 30%), reflecting poor investigation quality, victim intimidation, and insensitive evidentiary standards—issues directly addressed by the recent Supreme Court judgment.
Legal and Policy Framework
- Constitutional Mandate: Articles 23 and 24 prohibit trafficking and child labour; Articles 15(3), 21 and 39(f) mandate special protection for children’s dignity and development.
- Statutory Architecture: The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO Act and IPC Sections 370/370A collectively criminalise trafficking, exploitation and abuse.
- Judicial Reinforcement: The Supreme Court has clarified that trafficked children are injured witnesses, whose testimony cannot be discarded due to minor inconsistencies, aligning with trauma-informed justice principles.
Government Schemes and Institutional Response
- Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs): Established in many districts to focus on detection, rescue and investigation, supported by the Ministry of Home Affairs, though uneven operational capacity persists.
- Ujjawala Scheme: Targets prevention, rescue, rehabilitation and reintegration of women and child victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation; however, CAG audits have pointed to gaps in coverage and monitoring.
- Mission Vatsalya (Child Protection Services): Supports Child Welfare Committees, shelter homes, counselling and education, forming the backbone of post-rescue care.
- Operation Smile / Muskaan: Police-led initiatives that have traced thousands of missing children annually, reducing trafficking risks through coordinated rescue operations.
- TrackChild Portal: A national digital platform integrating police and child welfare data to track missing and found children, improving inter-State coordination.
Gaps and Criticisms
- Implementation Deficit: Reports by NCPCR and CAG highlight overcrowded shelters, staff shortages, and inadequate psychosocial care, increasing risks of re-trafficking.
- Reactive Policy Bias: Most interventions focus on rescue after exploitation, while preventive measures such as livelihood security, schooling and social protection in source areas remain weak.
- Fragmented Governance: Multiple ministries—Home, Women & Child Development, Labour—operate in silos, diluting accountability and follow-up.
- Reintegration Challenges: Without sustained education, skill training and income support, rescued children often return to vulnerable environments.
Way Forward
- Shift to Prevention-Centric Strategy: Strengthen social protection, universal schooling, nutrition, and livelihood programmes in trafficking-prone districts, in line with SDG 8.7 (ending child trafficking).
- Trauma-Informed Justice System: Mandatory training for police, prosecutors and judges on child psychology and victim-sensitive evidence handling, institutionalising Supreme Court guidelines.
- Unified Anti-Trafficking Framework: Operationalise a national anti-trafficking authority to coordinate intelligence, rescue, rehabilitation and prosecution across States.
- Strengthen Rehabilitation and Aftercare: Improve quality of shelters, long-term education, skill development and family reintegration to prevent re-trafficking.
- Data-Driven Monitoring: Enhance NCRB data granularity, map trafficking corridors, and track repeat offenders to improve deterrence and accountability.
Conclusion
Child trafficking in India reflects deep socio-economic inequalities and governance gaps. While judicial interventions have strengthened victim-centric justice, eliminating trafficking requires a preventive, welfare-oriented and institutionally coordinated approach that protects children before exploitation occurs.
Mains Question
- Analyse the socio-economic causes of child trafficking and critically evaluate the effectiveness of government schemes in addressing the problem. Suggest a way forward.(250 words, 15 marks)
Source: The Hindu