Mumbai, April 16: The Bombay High Court has directed the immediate repatriation of a 25-year-old Bangladeshi woman rescued in an immoral trafficking case, flagging an “inordinate delay of over six months” in sending her back home.
Court flags delay, orders repatriation
A bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata ordered that the victim be repatriated forthwith, subject to her furnishing an undertaking to appear virtually during the trial as and when required. Considering the prolonged delay, the court chose to exercise its writ jurisdiction instead of sending the parties back to the Special Court.
Plea by Rescue Foundation
The order came on a plea filed by the Rescue Foundation, which has been caring for the woman in connection with a 2024 case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The NGO submitted that the victim had been lured from Bangladesh by a woman on the promise of a well-paying job at a beauty parlour in India. Driven by financial distress and the need to repay her husband’s debts, she accepted the offer and was brought into India without documents with the help of an agent.
It argued that she should be repatriated without further delay, especially since she has a six-year-old son in Bangladesh and cannot be kept indefinitely in a shelter home awaiting trial. The NGO also highlighted her ill health, hospitalisation, and lack of livelihood, with all expenses being borne by the organisation.
Earlier observations by court
In an earlier order dated March 11, the High Court had observed that the victim “continued to suffer due to authorities’ lapses” and directed the trial court to frame charges expeditiously to facilitate her return.
Centre cites SOP, court questions requirement
During the hearing, the Centre relied on the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) governing cross-border trafficking between India and Bangladesh, along with a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding.
The SOP indicated that victims are required to obtain consent from the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) or a magistrate’s order for repatriation.
The bench, however, questioned this requirement in the case of an adult victim, especially when the Ministry of External Affairs had already granted permission and the Bangladesh authorities had issued a travel permit.
“None of the counsels were able to point out any specific provision in law mandating such an order from the Magistrate,” the court noted. It further clarified that Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act “does not contemplate or require any order permitting repatriation.”
Also Watch:
HC intervenes citing exceptional delay
Holding that a ‘No Objection’ from the concerned court would suffice, the bench said that ordinarily, the Special Court that recorded the victim’s statement would be the appropriate authority to grant it. However, given the exceptional delay, the High Court intervened directly, ordering that the victim “shall be repatriated to her country of origin forthwith.”
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
