Child Trafficking in India: Why the Supreme Court’s Latest Ruling Matters

Child trafficking continues to cast a long and disturbing shadow over India’s constitutional promise of dignity and protection for every child. In a recent judgment in “K. P. Kiran Kumar vs State”, the Supreme Court of India laid down strict guidelines to curb such offences, holding that trafficking amounts to a gross violation of a child’s fundamental right to life under Article 21. The ruling comes against grim national data: while thousands of children are being rescued every year, convictions remain alarmingly rare, raising questions about enforcement, deterrence, and institutional accountability.

The scale of the problem: rescues without justice

Official data underscores the paradox at the heart of India’s anti-trafficking response. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, around 3,098 children below 18 years were rescued in 2022. Between April 2024 and March 2025, more than 53,000 children were rescued nationwide from child labour, trafficking and kidnapping. Yet, between 2018 and 2022, the conviction rate for trafficking-related offences stood at just 4.8%.

This sharp mismatch between rescue and conviction reflects deeper systemic failures—weak investigations, poor coordination between agencies, lack of victim support during trials, and long delays that often collapse cases before they reach logical conclusion.

How law defines child trafficking

Internationally, the benchmark definition comes from the Palermo Protocol, which defines child trafficking as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation. Crucially, consent of the child is legally irrelevant.

India’s domestic law mirrors this approach. Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita criminalises trafficking for exploitation through force, coercion, abduction, deception, abuse of power or inducement. The law adopts a wide understanding of “exploitation”, covering physical and sexual abuse, slavery, servitude, forced labour and even forced organ removal. This breadth reflects an attempt to keep pace with evolving forms of trafficking networks.

Constitutional and statutory safeguards for children

The Constitution provides a strong normative framework against child trafficking. Articles 23 and 24 prohibit human trafficking, forced labour and employment of children in hazardous occupations. Directive Principles under Article 39 obligate the State to ensure that children are not abused, are protected against exploitation, and grow in conditions of freedom and dignity.

These constitutional guarantees are reinforced by multiple statutes. Sections 98 and 99 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita criminalise the buying and selling of minors. Sexual exploitation is addressed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act provides a framework for care, protection and rehabilitation of trafficked children, recognising them as victims in need of support rather than offenders.

Why POCSO plays a central role

Among India’s legal tools, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act holds particular significance. It comprehensively defines sexual offences against children, prescribes stringent punishments—including life imprisonment and, in extreme cases, the death penalty—and is gender-neutral in its application.

To address endemic delays, nearly 400 fast-track courts have been set up exclusively to try POCSO cases, each expected to dispose of around 165 cases annually. While this reflects institutional intent, uneven staffing and procedural delays continue to dilute the impact on conviction rates.

The Supreme Court’s evolving approach

The judiciary has long recognised child trafficking as a structural socio-economic problem rather than a mere law-and-order issue. In “Vishal Jeet vs Union of India”, the Court called trafficking and child prostitution grave social evils requiring a preventive and humanistic response. In “M. C. Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu”, it issued sweeping directions to prohibit child labour in hazardous industries. Later, in “Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India”, the Court addressed large-scale exploitation and trafficking, emphasising rescue, rehabilitation and accountability.

The latest ruling in “K. P. Kiran Kumar” builds on this jurisprudence by explicitly linking trafficking to the fundamental right to life, thereby elevating the issue from statutory compliance to constitutional obligation.

Why trafficking persists despite strong laws

The Court’s recent guidelines underline that trafficking thrives on vulnerability. Poverty, unemployment, migration, disasters and the breakdown of family support systems push children—especially from marginalised communities—into risk. In recent years, social media and online platforms have emerged as new recruitment tools, with traffickers luring children through promises of jobs, modelling opportunities or quick income.

Weak inter-State coordination further compounds the problem. Since policing and law and order are State subjects, traffickers often exploit jurisdictional gaps, moving children across borders to evade detection.

The road ahead: from rescue to deterrence

The Supreme Court’s message is clear: rescuing children is not enough. The State must ensure effective investigations, victim-sensitive trials, and a sharp rise in convictions to create real deterrence. Strengthening rehabilitation mechanisms, protecting witnesses, and improving Union–State coordination are essential steps.

Above all, the judgment reinforces a constitutional truth—child trafficking is not just a crime against individuals, but an assault on the moral and legal foundations of the Republic. Preventing it requires not only laws and courts, but sustained social, economic and institutional commitment.