Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India has directed all States and Union Territories to take immediate steps to confer police station status on Anti-Human Trafficking Units (ATHUs) by issuing appropriate notifications in accordance with law. The Court emphasised that formally recognising these specialised units as police stations is an important step towards ensuring the effective implementation of its Victim Protection Plan, framed to strengthen the response to human trafficking, particularly the trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued the direction while considering an ongoing matter concerning compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment dated May 29, 2026, which addressed the trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation. The proceedings form part of the Court’s continuing effort to ensure that the safeguards and institutional mechanisms established through its earlier judgment are translated into effective action at the ground level.

The matter concerns the implementation of a comprehensive framework intended to protect victims of trafficking, improve coordination among law enforcement agencies and welfare institutions, and ensure that the authorities responsible for identifying, rescuing, rehabilitating, and protecting victims discharge their duties effectively. The Court’s latest direction arose after Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for the petitioner, highlighted the need to implement paragraph 362(b)(iii) of the principal judgment, which contemplated conferring police station status on Anti-Human Trafficking Units.

Recognising the significance of the submission, the Supreme Court directed the Home Departments of all States and Union Territories to act at the earliest and issue the necessary notifications in accordance with law. It also directed the Union Government to take up the issue with the respective State and Union Territory administrations and ensure that the requisite notifications are issued.

The Court’s intervention assumes particular importance because the effective enforcement of anti-trafficking laws depends not only on the existence of statutory protections but also on the institutional capacity of the agencies entrusted with implementing them. Specialised anti-trafficking units may play a critical role in identifying organised trafficking networks, coordinating rescue operations, assisting victims and facilitating investigations. However, their operational effectiveness also depends on their legal authority, administrative recognition and coordination with other police and welfare institutions.

The Supreme Court’s direction must therefore be understood within the wider context of its efforts to strengthen the institutional framework for preventing human trafficking and protecting survivors. By requiring States and Union Territories to take formal steps towards recognising ATHUs as police stations, the Court has sought to address an implementation issue that could affect the practical functioning of the victim protection mechanism.

The proceedings also reveal that the Court remains concerned about incomplete compliance with other directions issued in its principal judgment. These include the identification and notification of recognised welfare institutions, the preparation of lists of eligible social welfare workers, and the appointment of designated police and government nodal officers. The Court observed that these measures were essential for implementing the Victim Protection Plan at the ground level and directed the Union Government to ensure full compliance before the next hearing.

The matter has been listed for further consideration on December 14, 2026, when the Court is expected to review the steps taken by the concerned authorities and examine the updated compliance position.

Arguments of the Parties:

The principal submission supporting the latest direction was advanced by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, who appeared for the petitioner. Her submission focused on the need to implement the specific requirement contained in paragraph 362(b)(iii) of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated May 29, 2026. She brought to the Court’s attention that Anti-Human Trafficking Units needed to be conferred police station status in accordance with the directions already issued by the Court.

The submission raised an important question concerning the distinction between establishing specialised units administratively and providing them with the formal legal recognition contemplated by the Court. The existence of an ATHU, by itself, may not resolve every issue concerning its authority or functioning. Where the Supreme Court has specifically contemplated police station status, the concerned governments must take the necessary steps to give effect to that direction through the legally appropriate mechanism.

The petitioner’s position, as reflected in the proceedings, was directed towards ensuring compliance with the principal judgment rather than seeking the formulation of an entirely new anti-trafficking framework. Paragraph 362(b)(iii) had already addressed the relevant institutional requirement. The immediate concern was therefore that the direction should be implemented by the States and Union Territories without further delay.

The importance of this submission becomes clearer when considered against the broader objectives of the Victim Protection Plan. Anti-human trafficking enforcement involves several stages, including the detection of trafficking, the rescue and identification of victims, investigation of suspected offences, coordination with welfare authorities and the provision of appropriate protection and rehabilitation. The effectiveness of these processes may depend on whether the agencies assigned to perform them possess the necessary legal recognition and operational authority.

By drawing attention to the status of ATHUs, the petitioner highlighted an institutional requirement that the Court had already identified as part of its broader approach to combating trafficking. The request was, in substance, for the authorities to move beyond the existence of a judicial direction and take the formal administrative and legal steps necessary to implement it.

The petitioner also placed the issue within the context of the Court’s continuing supervision of compliance with the principal judgment. The proceedings concerned not merely the wording of the directions issued earlier but also whether the concerned authorities had taken concrete steps to implement them. The request for police station status was consequently part of a wider effort to ensure that the institutional safeguards envisaged by the Court become operational in practice.

As regards the respondents, the principal responsibility for compliance rests with the Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories. The Supreme Court specifically directed their respective Home Departments to issue appropriate notifications in accordance with law. It also required the Union Government to take up the matter with all States and Union Territories and ensure that the notifications are issued.

The available case summary does not record a separate, detailed argument advanced by the Union Government or the State and Union Territory respondents opposing the petitioner’s submission. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute to them a specific legal objection, factual defence or justification for the delay that is not reflected in the reported proceedings.

Nevertheless, the Court’s directions make clear the responsibilities it expects the respondent authorities to discharge. The Home Departments must take the necessary steps within their respective jurisdictions, while the Union Government must coordinate with the States and Union Territories to facilitate implementation. The direction thus recognises that execution of the institutional requirement involves both State-level action and coordination at the national level.

The compliance issue extended beyond the status of ATHUs. The Court noted that four additional directions contained in paragraph 456 of its principal judgment had not been fully complied with by all States and Union Territories. These directions concerned the notification of recognised welfare institutions under Sections 15(6A) and 17A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the preparation of State-wide and Union Territory-wide lists of eligible social welfare workers, and the designation of Police Nodal Officers and Government Nodal Officers.

These requirements demonstrate that the Court’s concern was not limited to the formal status of a single category of specialised police units. Instead, it was examining whether the wider institutional arrangements required for the protection of trafficking victims had been put in place. The notification of welfare institutions, identification of eligible social welfare workers and appointment of nodal officers are intended to support coordination between law enforcement agencies and the institutions responsible for victim welfare.

The Union Government was consequently required to obtain information from the relevant stakeholders about the measures taken to implement the Victim Protection Plan and file a fresh status report. The Court’s directions placed responsibility on the authorities to demonstrate actual compliance, rather than merely indicate that the relevant requirements were under consideration.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court accepted the submission made by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat and issued a specific direction requiring all States and Union Territories to confer police station status on Anti-Human Trafficking Units through appropriate notifications in accordance with law. The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan emphasised that the direction had to be implemented at the earliest.

The Court recorded its direction in clear terms: “In this regard, we direct all the State/UT Governments in their respective Home Departments to give effect to this direction at the earliest by issuing an appropriate notification, in accordance with law.”

The wording of the direction is significant for two reasons. First, it identifies the respective Home Departments as the authorities responsible for taking the necessary steps within the States and Union Territories. Second, it requires the conferral of police station status to be implemented through an appropriate notification in accordance with law. The Court has therefore called for a formal legal and administrative measure rather than leaving compliance to informal arrangements or the continued functioning of ATHUs without the contemplated status.

The direction also demonstrates that the Court expects the institutional requirements contained in its principal judgment to be implemented in substance. A judicial direction concerning the status of a specialised unit cannot achieve its intended purpose merely because the relevant unit exists or performs some anti-trafficking functions. The authorities must take the additional steps required to give legal effect to the status contemplated by the Court.

At the same time, the Supreme Court expressly qualified its direction by requiring the notifications to be issued in accordance with law. This means that the States and Union Territories must use the legally appropriate procedure applicable to them while giving effect to the Court’s mandate. The requirement of legal compliance does not dilute the direction; rather, it specifies the manner in which the authorities must implement it.

The Court also placed a corresponding responsibility on the Union Government. It directed that the Union Government “shall also take up this issue at the earliest with all the States/UTs and see to it that appropriate notifications are issued.”

This additional direction is important because implementation requires coordinated action across different administrative jurisdictions. While the concerned State and Union Territory authorities must issue the relevant notifications, the Union Government has been directed to engage with them and ensure that the process moves forward. The national government is thus expected to facilitate compliance and monitor whether the required steps are being taken.

The Court’s approach reflects the distinction between issuing a judicial mandate and ensuring that the mandate produces practical results. Where implementation depends on multiple governments and administrative departments, the effectiveness of a judicial direction may require continued monitoring, the collection of information and the identification of gaps in compliance. The present proceedings illustrate the Court’s use of continuing judicial supervision to examine whether its earlier directions have been implemented.

The broader legal foundation of the proceedings lies in the Supreme Court’s judgment dated May 29, 2026, concerning the trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation. Under that judgment, the Court framed a Victim Protection Plan by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decrees or make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in a cause or matter pending before it. The constitutional provision enables the Court to issue appropriate directions within its jurisdiction to ensure that justice is effectively secured in the matters before it. In the present case, the Victim Protection Plan forms part of the Court’s broader response to the need for meaningful protection of victims of human trafficking.

The significance of Article 142 in this context lies in the Court’s attempt to ensure that the legal system’s response to trafficking is not confined to the prosecution of offenders. Effective protection also requires attention to the circumstances and needs of victims, including the institutional arrangements through which they may be identified, assisted, protected and connected with appropriate welfare services.

Human trafficking is a complex offence that may involve organised networks, exploitation, coercion and the movement or control of vulnerable individuals for unlawful purposes. Addressing it effectively requires coordination among police authorities, welfare institutions, social workers and government departments. A framework intended to protect victims must therefore be supported by institutions capable of performing their assigned responsibilities in a coordinated and legally effective manner.

The recognition of ATHUs as police stations is relevant to this institutional framework. Anti-Human Trafficking Units are specialised mechanisms intended to address trafficking-related offences and associated investigative and enforcement requirements. Their formal status can be important to the way their functions are organised and exercised under the applicable legal framework. By directing the authorities to implement the status contemplated in paragraph 362(b)(iii), the Supreme Court has emphasised the need to give practical effect to the institutional arrangement envisaged in its principal judgment.

However, the legal consequences of police station status must ultimately be understood in accordance with the applicable statutes and notifications. The latest direction does not, by itself, establish that every ATHU already possesses every power associated with a police station. Instead, the Court has required the concerned governments to take the appropriate legal steps to confer the contemplated status. The precise scope of the powers and functions resulting from that recognition will depend on the applicable law and the terms of the relevant notifications.

Beyond the ATHU issue, the Court expressed concern over incomplete compliance with four additional directions issued in paragraph 456 of the principal judgment. It observed that these directions had not been fully implemented by all States and Union Territories. The Court considered the outstanding requirements essential to the effective implementation of the Victim Protection Plan.

One of these requirements concerns the notification of recognised welfare institutions under Sections 15(6A) and 17A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. These provisions form part of the statutory framework dealing with trafficking-related exploitation and the institutional response to it. The notification of the relevant institutions is intended to ensure that the statutory mechanisms envisaged by the law can operate through identified and recognised bodies.

The identification of recognised institutions is particularly relevant where the protection and rehabilitation of victims require coordinated action beyond police investigation. Law enforcement authorities may be responsible for detecting offences and conducting investigations, but victim protection can also involve welfare support, institutional assistance and other measures required by law. A functioning framework must ensure that the institutions entrusted with these responsibilities are appropriately identified and notified.

The Court also referred to the requirement of preparing State-wide and Union Territory-wide lists of eligible social welfare workers. Such lists can help establish a structured pool of persons who satisfy the applicable eligibility requirements and may be involved in relevant victim-protection processes. The preparation of these lists is part of the broader effort to ensure that the support mechanisms envisaged under the Court’s plan are available in an organised and identifiable form.

Another outstanding requirement concerns the designation of Police Nodal Officers and Government Nodal Officers. Designated officers can serve as points of contact for coordination, communication and implementation within their respective departments. In matters involving multiple institutions and administrative authorities, clearly identified officers can help reduce uncertainty over responsibility and facilitate the exchange of information required to implement judicial directions.

The Court’s concern regarding these requirements demonstrates that victim protection cannot be achieved through isolated measures. The formal recognition of ATHUs must operate alongside the notification of welfare institutions, the preparation of eligible social welfare worker lists and the designation of responsible officers. Together, these arrangements are intended to create a more coordinated system for implementing the Victim Protection Plan.

The Bench described these measures as “absolutely necessary for the ground-level implementation” of the Victim Protection Plan. This observation highlights the Court’s emphasis on implementation as an essential part of the judicial process. The existence of a comprehensive plan is only the first step; its effectiveness depends on whether the authorities translate its requirements into functioning administrative and institutional arrangements.

The Court accordingly directed the Union Government to ensure full compliance with the outstanding requirements by the next hearing. It also required the Union to collect information from all relevant stakeholders concerning the steps taken to implement the Victim Protection Plan and submit a fresh status report.

The requirement to file an updated status report serves an important monitoring purpose. It enables the Court to assess the progress made by the concerned authorities, identify requirements that remain outstanding and determine whether further directions are necessary. By asking the Union Government to collect information from stakeholders, the Court has also emphasised the importace of obtaining a consolidated picture of impl